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 Organicdev (talk | contribs) at 12:59, 22 March 2012 (→‎From Organicdev: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


User talk
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, unless you request otherwise, 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.

J.O. Patterson, Sr.

I see you deleted J.O. Patterson, Sr. because the the page was created by a banned or blocked user. However, the code you used was G5 which says "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." I must assume you consider my edits to be insubstantial. Correct? Sandcherry (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked back at the article, and I do think that there are significant contributions from other editors, so I have undeleted it. Thanks for calling this to my attention, so I could correct it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! When will it be visible? Sandcherry (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I mistakenly looked at and restored J.O. Patterson, Jr., instead of J.O. Patterson, Sr. However, I have now looked at the Sr. article, and carefully compared the last version with the version left by the banned user who created it, paragraph by paragraph. There had been numerous edits between these two versions, but almost all of those edits were either tiny changes, or fairly small unsuitable changes that had been reverted, or both. (Several of the edits had, quite rightly, been reverted by you.) What remained included a number of minor changes, such as adding an "Unreferenced" tag, changing the date of birth, adding the names of his predecessor and successor as bishop, adding the article to some categories. However, the only really change was the addition of a couple of sentences about his death. Speedy deletion criterion G5 refers to "no substantial edits by others", but does not explicitly mention the issue of what happens if there have been quite a number of edits, but with little effect on the article. Also, even the reverted edits were fairly small, none of them very substantial. Having thought about it very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that it is within the spirit of CSD G5 to say that the article is substantially that created by the blocked user, with no substantial contributions by others, and therefore qualifies for deletion. It would not make much sense to take the line that CSD G5 can be thwarted by making a number of useless edits and reverting them. This impression is reinforced by the fact that the article is unreferenced, and somewhat promotional in character. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You restored the correct article. I primarily edited J.O. Patterson, Jr. - sorry for the confusion. Also, J.O. Patterson, Sr. does not seem to be notable. Sandcherry (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STOP DELETING MY PAGES!

Stop deleting my pages! I made a page for my favourite band because they didn't have one and you deleted it, I made on for there upcoming album and you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazz101 (talkcontribs) 15:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. You need to read the notability guidelines to see why. (Links are given on your talk page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/makemefamousmusic they are a real band one of the most anticipated bands in all of metal at the moment. There Album is real It's Now Or Never. comes out on the 27th of march, 2012.

So stop deleting the page when people make one for them!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazz101 (talkcontribs) 16:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody denied that "they are a real band". Have you actually read thenotability guidelines? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew they were a real band why delete the page? I wasn't even done editing the page yet, you guys just deleted it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazz101 (talkcontribs) 16:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try just once more. If you want to know why the article was deleted, then read the notability guidelines. You may also like to look at WP:Existence ≠ Notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything that exists: to qualify as the subject of an article, a topic has to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. There is no evidence that your band does so. Got it?
On an unrelated note, please add any new talk page message on an existing subject in the section where that subject is already dealt with. Please avoid adding it to a section on a different subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farthing Woods....

Just a heads up. User moved article, marked the move as "minor", which seems odd. [1] And the contribs look familiar. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I've blocked the account. I will look at reverting the various page moves etc when I have more time. Thanks for telling me. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we caught it fairly quick. This guy takes to 'toons like a moth to a flame. And gets the same results. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HUMOUR and that's all I can say. Please remove the deletion discussion, it's not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.240.169 (talkcontribs) 11:49, 15 March 2012‎

Well, humour is a matter of opinion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Thecameraguy12345678's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please add new sections at the bottom of the page. That is where new messages will be looked for, and new messages at the top may be overlooked, especially if someone else posts new messages before the misplaced ones are noticed. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesBWatson. You've just deleted, Bush hall, an article I was in the process of improving at the time. You must have missed the {{|hangon}} and {{|inuse}} tags I plastered on it... Would you mind restoring the content (I'm happy for you userfy it to User:Yunshui/Bush Hall or similar, rather than back into mainspace) so that I can finish sorting it out? I'm pretty convinced that it's notable, and the advertising was fairly easily dealt with. Thanks, Yunshui  14:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, balls to it; there aren't enough sources to convince me the effort is worthwhile. As you were! Yunshui  14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the page I just created entitled Philip Morris & Son. No copyright materials have been used and this entry was designed to show history of Philip Morris & Son and to clarify it that isn't part of Philip Morris the cigarette company. This a common confusion. What is the best way to proceed please? Dean Johnston (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Substantial parts of the article were verbatim from http://blog.philipmorrisdirect.co.uk/about-us/.
  2. The article was unambiguously promotional in character.
  3. I see that on your user talk page you say that you are "the website developer for Philip Morris & Son". That means that you have a clear conflict of interest, and should not be writing an article about your own business. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand if you think I'm advertising, that's not the intention. I've just started creating what I thought to be information what anybody might look for. What better person to write about something like a company that I have knowledge about? I have already re-created the page to try and take your comments into consideration, after all it's information and history we want surfers to find not rubbish. Dean Johnston (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 71.92.177.100

Hey, I was trying to decline this AIV report and got edit-conflicted three times. This user has not edited since their last warning, and their last warning was level 3. A block is, in my opinion, premature. --Chris (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a one-week block is very premature... --Chris (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when the same editor has been vandalising over a period of more than 24 hours, despite warnings, I don't see any reason to let them carry on, even though the number of edits has been small and the amount of warning low. However, I'll unblock, and we can see how it goes. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems a bit pointless to warn someone and follow that up with a block when the editor hasn't done anything since. If we don't plan on giving vandals a chance to stop, we shouldn't issue warnings in the first place. --Chris (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I suppose I was a bit hasty. However, when the same person comes back after more than 24 hours I feel they have been given a chance to stop, and chosen not to take it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may very well be true. I guess we will see. Thanks for humoring me. :) --Chris (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I probably was a little hasty, and there's not much too lose by giving a little WP:ROPE. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsyilmaz (talkcontribs) 21:35, 15 March 2012‎

Declined proposed deletion of Laurent Garnier

I am utterly mystified why you proposed this article for deletion. It already has citations of an Allmusic biography that makes his notability clear and to a book source that confirms several British hit records. There are lots of news articles showing up on a Google News search and several Google Books results, so your claim that there is "no evidence of notability" is astounding. Can I remind you that proposed deletion is only for articles that are "uncontroversially a deletion candidate". This doesn't come close to being suitable for proposed deletion.--Michig (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for contacting me to let me know your thoughts on this.
Allmusic does little to establish notability, as it indiscriminately includes almost anyone with a place in the music industry (as its name implies): it does not have anything remotely like Wikipedia's notability criteria. I am always cautious about considering statements like "There are lots of news articles showing up on a Google News search", because unfortunately many people say something like that and actually mean what they say, viz. simply "there are lots of news articles showing up on a Google News search", rather than "there are lots of news articles showing up on a Google News search, and I have checked that a significant number of them contain the kind of coverage required to establish that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines". Naturally I hope you meant the latter, and chose not to go to the trouble of saying what suitable sources you had found, but when I checked the Google News hits, I found that most of them gave only passing mention of Garnier, and those that gave more were doubtfully reliable, doubtfully independent, or both. (For example, www.skiddle.com, which gave the most coverage among the first few hits, is selling tickets to an event involving Garnier.) Turning to the Google books hits, I found it necessary to start by excluding those which refer to completely different people of the same name. (No doubt you too found the same when you checked them.) For example, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana (1836) is clearly referring to a different Laurent Garnier, and Quantitative analysis of early visual units of the fly (By Laurent Garnier) is no doubt by a different Laurent Garnier. When we exclude such books as those, we are left mainly with passing mentions, though in a few cases with several passing mentions.
To answer your question, yes, you certainly can remind me that PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions. Clearly this one was not uncontroversial, as you have contested it. However, before I made the proposal, I had no way of knowing that it was controversial. With nowhere near enough evidence in the article to establish notability by Wikipedia standards, a request for better sources which had received no response in nearly two years, and the sort of results I have described on searching for sources, all appearances were fully consistent with it being an uncontroversial case, and the only way to find out that it wasn't was to try placing a PROD and seeing whether anyone contested it. As you are aware, that settled the matter, and established that the deletion is in fact controversial. That is exactly the purpose for which proposing deletion is for. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't see these that come up on the first page of a Google Books search, and all go well beyond 'passing mentions': Billboard, CMJ New Music Monthly? Allmusic does not 'indiscriminately include almost anyone with a place in the music industry', certainly not when it comes to writing biographies, and in any case it is reliable source - it doesn't matter what its inclusion criteria are. Articles about artists that have had hit records are never going to be uncontroversial deletion candidates. Please bear this in mind in future.--Michig (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so a brief one-paragraph review is more than a "passing mention", but not very substantial. Allmusic's own claim is to try to be as inclusive as possible. I find "it doesn't matter what its inclusion criteria are" a truly bewildering statement. If a source includes subjects which have no significance or importance, then inclusion in that source is no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tiiya Wilhson

My logic was that this User:Tiiya Wilhson exceeds WP:User pages "Excessive unrelated content"

  • "A weblog recording your non-Wikipedia activities."
  • "Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia"
I certainly agree with those comments about her edits, and I have posted a message to her talk page, explaining to her why her activity is unacceptable. I'm not sure what your purpose in posting to me about it is, but if you are referring to your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, her actions, while inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards, are not vandalism. "Vandalism" does not mean any editing that is unacceptable, but only editing which is done with the intention of being obstructive. I see no evidence at all that she was doing anything other than editing in good faith, without being aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In that situation the thing to do is to give friendly explanation and advice, not to block the user from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, did you mean to refer to your speedy deletion tag on her user page? If so, then that is a simpler matter. It is not "a blatant and obvious hoax". It may or may not be a hoax, but it is not a blatant and obvious one: it could easily be a vanity page about herself, not a hoax at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tinga Tinga Terrorist

Not enough to get overly excited but...[2] and worth watching at the least. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first is doubtful, but the second is certain. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm getting better at that. Marginally. I need to just whois them all first, sometimes I get in a hurry and jump the gun. Would rather catch it early on, as I'm sure you would. I do rather like the Curious moniker "Tinga Tinga Terrorist" however ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is seeming worthy of a long term abuse case. God knows when he'll let up. Calabe1992 12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Unfortunately, some of the ranges he uses also get significant amounts of use by other editors, which limits the amount of range-blocking that can be used, and he has edited quite a number of articles, which limits the effectiveness of page protection. Nevertheless, some range blocking and some page protection do combine together to significantly reduce the damage, I think, and other than that it as a matter of whack-a-mole. The one thing that helps to make it easier is that he doesn't seem to be very intelligent. A more intelligent person would easily be able to avoid some of the pitfalls that this person repeatedly falls into. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by a page deletion

What happened to the "List of Animals of Farthing Wood Episodes" page if I may dare ask? I've been using that page recently and noticed that you deleted it on March 14th - it didn't seem like a problem page, whats going on here? Jennytablina (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page stalker) List of the Animals of Farthing Wood episodes shows why it was deleted, sock action. It was also full of copyvio, no sources or rationale for WP:N, but those are separate problems. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent some time searching, and came to the conclusion you must mean List of the Animals of Farthing Wood episodes. (A difference in the title make it unrecognisable by the software.) I was about to post an answer to your query, when some stupid Microsoft update program decided to shut my computer down without consulting me. By the time I came back online, Dennis Brown had beaten me to it. However, I will add one thing. There has been much discussion on a number of occasions as to whether an article which might be useful should be deleted just because it was created by a banned user. There are perfectly good and intelligent arguments on both sides. However, each time it has been discussed there has been consensus for the view that the damage done by sometimes losing usable articles is outweighed by the damage to the project that would be done if banned users were given the message that they could get away with ignoring their ban, and edit as if they were not banned, Thus the policy is that a page created by a banned user in defiance of their ban, with no substantive edits by others, can be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About a certain game...

Would you mind helping w/ this article?

Thanks.

-017Bluefield (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that the article could benefit from a clean up, but I know nothing about the subject, and am not sure how much help I could be. I also think that, if I did make changes, there is a good chance that the changes I mace might not be to your liking. For example, I see that you have added at least one empty section, whereas I regard empty sections as totally undesirable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear james would you please delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marila_rita_chantia or let me edit the problem that you deleted it. i was so bad view for me to visitors see deletation logs, i try to remove it but i couldn't please help me.

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marila rita chantia (talkcontribs) 20:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't help at all. Wikipedia administrators have no power to remove deletion logs. Technically the Wikimedia Foundation could do it, but I am confident that they wouldn't, except in most exceptional circumstances. Sorry. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked back at the history of this article. I had forgotten that the article was a hoax. Frankly, even if I could remove the deletion log, I wouldn't. Before you chose to abuse Wikipedia to publicise lies, you should have considered the fact that, if your lies were detected, your dishonesty would be publicly exposed. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty shades of Grey?

I noticed that the "Fifty Shades of Grey" article was deleted. I don't know much about the book directly, and I went to Wikipedia to find out more. I'm a bit disappointed that someone (Mr. Watson I presume?) removed the entry.

"Fifty Shades of Grey" by author E.L. James is apparently based on S. Meyers Twilight series fan fiction. There is some controversy about plagiarism of Meyers work, and the situation poses some legal issues as well. Both books are New York Times best sellers. On this evidence, I think the book is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.20.99 (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me the exact title of the deleted article (making sure you get such details as capitalisation right)? If you do, I will look back at the history of the article and see why it was deleted. However, there is no record of there having ever been an article entitled either Fifty shades of Grey or Fifty Shades of Grey. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G5?

Why delete J.O. Patterson, Sr. under G5? The criterion only applies to pages without substantial edits from other people, and this article seems to have gotten substantial edits from lots of people who are neither blocked nor banned. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the last version before anyone other than the creator of the article edited it, to the final version before deleted, there was very little substantive change. Almost all of the edits between those two versions were either really tiny changes, or fairly small unsuitable changes that had been reverted. "Unsuitable" changes included probable BLP violations, as well as assorted unsourced promotional edits, etc.) As I said to another editor who asked me about this deletion, what remained included a number of minor changes, such as adding an "Unreferenced" tag, changing the date of birth, adding the names of his predecessor and successor as bishop, adding the article to some categories, while the only significant change was the addition of a couple of sentences about his death. However, since I have been asked a second time about the same deletion, I will give below a more detailed description of the changes. All of the changes were fairly small, none of them very substantial, and nearly all of those that had not been reverted were not at all substantive. Having thought about it very carefully, I came to the conclusion that it was within the spirit of CSD G5 to say that the article was substantially that created by the blocked user, with no substantial contributions by others, and therefore qualified for deletion. It would not make much sense to take the line that CSD G5 can be thwarted by making a number of useless edits and having them reverted. This impression is reinforced by the fact that the article is unreferenced, and somewhat promotional in character.
As promised above, I will now give a more detailed analysis of the kind of changes made between the author's version and the final version.
  • The article was added to a few categories. An unreferenced tag was added; the date of birth was changed; there were a number of minor formatting changes and similar, such as replacing "1907-1961" with "1907–1961", replacing the wikilink [[denomination]] with [[Christian denomination|denomination]] and [[American]] with [[United States|American]], etc. [[Holiness]]-[[Pentecostal]] was replaced with [[International Pentecostal Holiness Church|Pentecostal-Holiness]].
  • An external link was added to a web page by his son. Two copies of an external link to the Amazon page of a book by the same son were added. (One of the copies of the link was formatted as a "reference", but not attached to any statement in the article. Judging by reviews and the amazon summary of the book, it is about J. O. Patterson's son meeting some members of Michael Jackson's family, and nothing I have been able to found suggests there is more than passing mention of J. O. Patterson in it.)
  • There were a couple of more substantial, but still not very substantial, changes. Thus, the text "This ministry was started with less than twenty members, but through the years God blessed and the congregation grew to be one of the largest in the COGIC, with over 3,000 active members" was replaced with "Pentecostal Temple was started with less than twenty members, but through the years the congregation grew to be one of the largest in the COGIC, with over 3,000 active members".
  • Apart from the mention of the death, the most significant change was the addition of names of some people, with a claim that Patterson was their father. This claim had been repeatedly made by an edit-warring single purpose editor, using both an account and IP addresses. The claims lacked any reliable source, and could be libellous. They constituted a BLP violation, and so had no place in the article, and have to be completely discounted when assessing how substantial the changes were.
  • That leaves us with just one significant change, namely the addition of a three-sentence mention of Patterson's death. I did not think that this was sufficiently substantial to prevent speedy deletion.
I hope that gives some clarification of my reasons for regarding the deletion as valid. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Workgroup information deleted again

I put some factual information on the workgroup page and you deleted it again after I edited it again. It was pure facts and was entered under a sub heading. It included more detail about the peer to peer network on Microsoft servers. I even made a reference to the Microsoft website as it manufactures the products connected with workgroups. I'm happy to help improve any information that I am experienced with unless it is always deleted. I'm Microsoft Certified and a web developer so I am able to provide further information on many items related. Not sure if it's really worth it now, why did you delete it again? Dean Johnston (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page Workgroup is a disambiguation page. This means that it lists links to articles on different topics, any of which might be what a user wants if he or she searches for "Workgroup". The user can then follow the appropriate link to the article on the topic they want. For each link the page contains a brief explanation of what sense of "Workgroup" is involved, to enable users to select the right link. It is not helpful to expand disambiguation pages by including more substantial information on each topic, as the result is a page in which the relevant information a person wants is lost amongst other information on other topics. If you have information to add about one of the particular topics, then the place to add it is in the article on that topic, not in the disambiguation page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me get the Seedfund Wikipedia page right

Why are you deleting the 'Seedfund' page I don't understand! I had put credible independent sources where the fund was mentioned and the language used was neutral.

Why don't you check Seedfund.in and all the team members on LinkedIn/FB and if you google 'seedfund india' you will see that we exist. And Wikipedia's interface is so confusing and the guidelines too. I am so irritated and unsure what to do!

You can check SEBI Registered VC funds list of SEBI registered Indian VC funds and see for yourself that we are the India Seed Investment Trust. And the address mentioned here is the same one on our official site.

Pleasee help me here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.182.242 (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that Wikipedia's guidelines can be confusing for newcomers. In my opinion the are far too many policies and guidelines: I would prefer a return to the situation in the early days of Wikipedia, when everything was much simpler. I have posted some suggestions and advice to the talk page of the account which wrote the article, which, from what you say, was you.
I do not doubt that the business exists. Presumably you have seen the deletion log for the article, as you would otherwise have had no reason to associate me with the deletion. You will, therefore, have seen that the reason for the deletion was that there was no explanation of the subject's significance, not that it was doubted that the business exists. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on just anything, but requires a topic to satisfy certain notability standards if it is to be the subject of an article. You may like to read WP:Existence ≠ Notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Aholladay ncigf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Seen. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to properly warn someone?

Hello, Thanks for your feedback. I would like to know exactly how to warn someone who has not only vandalized a public page but has gone further to do damage on my personal page: Sajo10 is the same user as an ip address I mentioned before. Please check Revision history of User:BiHVolim. Thanks (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Sajo10 has a history of unhelpful editing, and also that it looks very likely that 213.112.123.66 is the same person. I also see that Sajo10 has received a very large number of messages over a long period about copyright issues and creating unsourced articles, but, as far as I can see, none about vandalism, and the IP talk page has never received any messages at all. I am also very surprised, in view of the string of messages to Sajo10 about problems, that he/she has never been warned about the possibility of a block. As for vandalism, though, I cannot see any evidence of that. Some of the issues appear to be differences of opinion between you and the other editor, rather than vandalism issues (for example, disagreement about such matters as whether to include accents on non-English names of people). Other differences involve details about scoring statistics, and only someone with a detailed knowledge of the subject could possibly be able to see at a glance whether that is vandalism or not. If it is vandalism, then you need to explain why, if you want an administrator to take any action. You can't expect an administrator who knows nothing about the Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team to spend hours looking up their history to decide whether there is vandalism involved.
The first thing to do is to contact the editor involved to explain your concerns. The place to do that is on the relevant talk page, either User talk:Sajo10 or User talk:213.112.123.66, as the case may be. There are ready-made message templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to use for various kinds of disruptive editing such as vandalism. However, it looks to me as though in this case it may be a matter of a good faith editor who does things you disagree with, in which case giving a vandalism warning will be unhelpful, and you should take the trouble to write your own message explaining why you disagree, rather than using a templated message. If the other editor thinks that what he or she is doing is right, then no matter how much you disagree, nothing useful will be achieved by saying "stop vandalising": you need to explain why you disagree. If, on the other hand, there really is vandalism, then it is a subtle kind of vandalism that is not obvious to an outsider (such as me). In that case it is necessary to explain why it is vandalism, so that if and when the case needs to be considered by an administrator, it will be clear to that administrator what the problem is. Therefore I strongly advise you to explain on the relevant user talk page what the problem is, whether or not it is vandalism.
You may also find it helpful to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that absolutely helpful response. I will have to re-read and give it a good go. Cheers once again. (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the CVS entry?

Mr. Watson,

Why did you delete the wikipedia entry for the University of California Center for Visual Sciences? I had been working hard with Wikipedia administrator Pol430 to get it in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. The page is intended to mirror many others as part of the numerous linked University of California pages on the Centers in that organization. There is one for the Center for Neuroscience, and other similar centers, and yet you just slapped down this one for no reason other than to claim it's advertising. This is not the case at all, and it is intended to describe the center, its history, and what it does, just like every other Wikipedia article out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkessler45 (talkcontribs) 00:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you have seen the deletion log entry, so you will know that the article was deleted as it was unambiguously promotional. From start to finish it was written from the point of view of someone in the organisation who wanted to impress us with how good a job it is doing, not from the point of view of an objective outsider. If you sincerely did not see that, then I can only guess that you are so closely involved in the subject that you are unable to stand back and see how you writing on the subject will look from the perspective of an outsider. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage us from writing articles on subjects we have a close personal involvement in: even if one sincerely intends to write objectively on such a subject, it can be difficult to do so. (That is, of course, quite apart from the case of someone whose deliberate intention is to use Wikipedia to opromote or advertise an organisation.)
I see that you twice removed a speedy deletion tag from the article, and subsequently it was removed again by an anonymous user using an IP address which has never made any other edits to Wikipedia, and which is registered to the University of California, Davis.
(Incidentally, although it is not really relevant, I may as well mention that, contrary to what you say, Pol430 is not an administrator.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do work at the university, and while I created the center's Web site, I am not affiliated with the CVS's programs or services. Those are for the UC faculty and students, whereas I am just an IT admin with the server to host the page. No i do not edit wikipedia all the time so I am not familiar with the now quite obvious myriad of nuances surrounding these details that are practically impossible to keep in mind all the time. My goal once Pol430 notified me of the problems was to get it to comply with Wikipedia's standards, which I still would like to do instead of having the topic just crushed. I initially just copied text I had written on the CVS Web page to cover its history, but it was clear that violated several rules, so I was working with Pol to iron these out (and yes I probably had edited the page once without being logged in, so it used my IP address). It's frustrating to have this effort just cancelled instead of being given pointers or options and opportunity to make it better and make it comply (something I would expect from a community effort, instead of this hard-lined policing that seems to be how this is run). Pol started doing this, which I greatly appreciated; but you did not give me this opportunity at all. I removed the speedy deletion tags at first, not knowing how to deal with them, but then seeing them return automatically was aware something else was up, and then started contacting Pol to figure it out. Wikipedia's guidelines (G11 that you linked to) do specifically state that it is OK to write about an organization you are involved with, so this alone is not enough to remove the article (in fact, after discussing with some colleagues its apparent many people affiliated withe the UC have contributed to the various UC pages). Because of that I still would like to get a page up about the CVS that includes something about it, and hopefully includes some of its history as well. It is a legitimate component of the University of California, and my only wish here was to keep the content about the university current and complete. Pol claims it's possible to get a draft of the deleted page so I can work from it, but says he cannot get this to me since he is not an admin, so I'm wondering if this could at all be done through you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.138.51 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it to User:Tkessler45/Center for Visual Sciences. Best wishes with the task of improving the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user says that they have retired and has put a link at the bottom of the talk page and user page which leads to User:McOoee. I dont think that its proper according to policies. Thanks! Yasht101 10:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need BLP speedy?

Can you take a look at this? [3] EEng (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your great effort in protecting entries against vandalism specially in Methodism. You deserve this. Ric Padgett (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G10

Hi James -  7  09:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

From Organicdev

Thank for removing that redundant page for me.