User talk:JBW

{{User:M{talkarchivenav}} |maxarchivesize = 100K |counter = 47 |minthreadsleft = 4

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, 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 add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Thanks...

...for setting me straight and helping out with that unblock request. I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing Articles Titles

Sorry for earlier, I was trying to change the article's title. I wans't able to change it, at first I thought it was a problem with my internet, so I tried to change the title everyway, and after I finally did it i couldn't revert it. Could you help me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Stop_%27Til_You_Get_Enough I want to change the "'til" to "'Til", I want a capital "T". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisguila (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be grammatically improper. The apostrophe replaces the "Un" ...so the capital letter has been replaced - you cannot decide to capitalize the 3rd letter of a word (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm actually unsure if it should be "'Til" or "'til". Some sources have one, some have the other. I don't have the time to look at the moment for an "official" source (i.e., label or artist's estate), but the usage in the article is inconsistent at the moment and I don't want to clean it up one way or the other. Thoughts? --Kinu ^t/_c 17:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I moved it before seeing the comments here from BWilkins & Kinu, so sorry if I got it wrong. However, (1) my searches suggest that the capital is significantly more common, although both exist, and (2) the capital is included in at least some material from the publisher. Frankly, though, it is beyond me why anyone would care one way or the other about anything so trivial, so I have no intention of getting into discussions about this, let alone move-warring if someone thinks there is a good reason for moving it back. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That works for me, especially considering my statement "I don't have the time" was effectively code for "I really don't care that much". --Kinu ^t/_c 00:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Leandro

Long time no speak. Leandro again on IP: 177.18.76.196. It's been a while since I've been around, but immediately, I've had to undo about 50 edits. Could you see to this IP when you have a minute? Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address for a few days. However, I will mention a couple of points for future reference. Firstly, when I read your message here, I had no memory of who "Leandro" was. If martial arts is a significant interest of yours, you may well be well aware of who has been disruptive on martial arts articles, but I have no knowledge of or interest in the subject, and someone who I blocked some time ago does not necessarily stay in my memory. (In recent weeks my editing has averaged at a rate equivalent to about 1700 edits per month, and something I did well over a month ago is not necessarily still in my mind.) It took me a while searching through my talk page archives to find Leandro da silva pereira santos, who is no doubt who you mean. It would have helped to have given me the exact user name. Secondly, I very quickly saw that there was a considerable overlap between the articles edited by the IP and those edited by Leandro da silva pereira santos, but that could just be a case of two editors with similar interests. It was by no means immediately obvious that they were the same person. If you know of specific reasons to connect an IP to a blocked editor, it would help a great deal if you would briefly mention what the evidence is. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. They are the same person. They keep making the same disruptive and nonsensical edits. All the IPs are from Porto Alegre, as 177.97.69.239 is too. Anyway, I just figured as you've been the one who is (admittedly not so much) aware, I would come to you. Cheers for stopping that previous IP. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

CSIA

JamesBWatson, Hi. I am notifying you that the modifications I made to the article "Canadian Ski Instructors' Alliance" were not complete. I undid your changes because I will continue editing the article until it falls within an acceptable range, which is currently impossible because some editors are undo-button maniacs. References will be added shortly, so please give me a break! --JellyBean4.1 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC) By the way, as an administrator, you should know that there currently is a huge decline in the number of Wikipedia editors. Supporting them instead of deleting their every moves might be something you should consider. Cheers. --JellyBean4.1 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of NCLab

Note: If you wish to add comments on this topic, then please add them to this section, rather than fragmenting discussion by starting a new section.

Hello, I left on my talk page an explanation why I think the page should not be deleted. It is an overview of a project, not an advertisement. I would be glad to remove from the page anything that seems inappropriate. Thank you PavelSolin (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you really did not see the article as promotional, then it seems that you are so close to the subject that you are unable to stand back from it and see how your writing will look from the detached perspective of an outside observer. The whole page, from start to finish, read like a publisher's brochure telling potential customers why they should use the product, rather than like an impartial, outsider's description. This is, in fact, a good illustration of why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines recommend not writing articles on subjects in which we have a close personal involvement. Leaving aside blatant spammers, which you are clearly not, even people who sincerely do not intend promotionally often find it difficult or impossible to see how promotional their own writing will look when a subject they have a close connection to is involved, and it seems that is so in this case. I see that you have received several messages about conflict of interest and promotional editing, and that as far back as July you expressed the intention of avoiding the problems. The fact that, despite that indication of your intentions, you have still failed to remove the clear and unambiguous promotional nature of the article, tends to confirm that you are too close to the subject to edit objectively on it. I think it best to accept that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage writing an article on a subject in which you have such a close involvement. If the subject really does satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria then no doubt an independent, uninvolved, editor, will write an article on the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

James, you are probably right, I should stay away from writing about NCLab. I am giving all my energy to the project and I may be failing to write impartially. But there are many users who would love to have NCLab page on Wikipedia. Would you recommend that someone else starts from scratch, or would you be willing to return the page for a limited trial time and see if people can remove its promotional character. Thanks to NCLab, high schools can access a free CAD system in the web browser and other things that make the kids excited about STEM. I realize that even this text here may sound promotional but I would very much appreciate you understanding and help. If the page can be reinstated, I will not edit ot myself in the future. Sincerely PavelSolin (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello James I am in the process of introducing Python as a general purpose computational tool for the Physics Curriculum at both the third year and Honours Level at the University of South Africa (UNISA) in Pretoria I have started to investigate using NCLab as part of this effort. Now It has come to my attention that you have decided to delete the NCLAB page based on your interpretation of the rules of wikipedia. I would like to appeal to you to reverse your decision and give the community of users of this excellent online computing environment a chance to address your concerns.

regards

M Braun UNISA moritz.braun@gmail.com 41.74.101.72 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello James! I am advocating STEM Curriculum for Washoe County NV, the NPO I represent, LEAF, uses the NCLab interface for my after-school programs. The wiki page for the lab is important to me since it gives teachers a point of reference when looking at my projects. (the LEAF website: http://nessesque.wix.com/leafoundationnv#!home/mainPage). Would you please give me access to the deleted page so that I may edit it down for approval? I know the Sage worksheets and similar interfaces have pages. I can make sure it is approved, and find the wiki IRC Channel helpful for input so that it is ok before you make a final decision to delete or keep the page. Thank you so much! JordanBlocher (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at JordanBlocher's talk page.
Message added 04:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I would like to support NCLab web page on Wikipedia. Please do not delete it. I use this web page in teaching of my Computational Science classes at the University of Texas at El Paso. Wikipedia is an important source of information and I use the article about NCLab at Wikipedia as a reference for my students. Pownuk (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear James,

I'm contacting you regarding the deletion of the NCLAB pages. Could you please explain why these have been deleted? In the past, students and postdocs of mine have found these extremely useful, so I rather dismayed to see that they no longer exist. I do hope that you can re-instate these pages, as soon as possible.

All the best,

Paul Houston Chair in Computational & Applied Mathematics University of Nottingham. 81.156.204.60 (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to say, that in my opinion NCLab Wikipedia page is really helpful, at least for my CS students taking my Numerical Methods classes at Warsaw University of Technology in Poland. I was able to point my students to this page when introducing them to NCLab. It saved me so much time, and students (when they were curious about NCLab) were able to read about other details of this system on their own. Chaberb (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Watson,

I am a graduate student at UC Santa CRuz and I use NCLabs for my research. Can you tell me why the Wiki page for NCLab was deleted?

Thanks, Elinor Velasquez 98.248.205.26 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear James,

I'd like to express my agreement with the above writers. The NCLab page probably had a promotional character but it also contained valuable and helpful information, which facilitated using NCLab as a tool in classes on numerical methods. If you reinstated the page, I am rather sure that there will be people taking care that its writing style meets wikipedia's standards.

Thanks, Sascha SaschaSchnepp (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello James, I don't understand the reason for the deletion of the NCLab Wikipedia page. In my opinion there wasn't more promotion/advertising as for example on the MATLAB page. NCLab is used by many students who are interested in numerical methods. A lot of them got their first impression of NCLab from the wikipedia page. I hope the page will be reinstated. Thanks, Melanie 131.188.56.102 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello James, I noticed that the page describing NCLab has been deleted today. I think that NCLab is for teaching numerical methods so useful that page on wikipedia should exist. This page contains a lot of useful and helpful informations not only promotional character. Thanks, Pavel Karban 11:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karban (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Because it was nothing but an advertisement (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wow! I've never before had anything like so many people posting in such rapid succession about one deletion. I wonder whether they have all come here independently, or whether word has got around that people should approach me on this. I am particularly interested to note that the substantial majority of the people concerned (seven of them) are either accounts or IP addresses that have never made any other edits, and have clearly come to Wikipedia specifically to try to save this article. However, I will put that aside, and deal with the issues concerning deletion. There are, in fact, three separate issues: (1) the reasons given above for asking for the article to be restored, (2) the reasons why the article was deleted, and (3) the question of whether any article on the subject should exist, not specifically the one which was deleted.

1. The arguments given above largely amount to saying "the article should be kept becasaue I like it" and "the article should be kept because it is useful", usually specifically "it is useful to me in the course of my teaching". However, Wikipedia's inclusion criteria have nothing to do with whether people like it, or whether lots of people have a use for it. You may like to look at the page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly the sections on the arguments keep it because I like it and keep it because It's useful. The argument that the article should be kept because it is a useful tool for teaching courses falls foul of the policy that Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. In fact, in view of that policy, the fact that the article was written in a way that seemed to be designed to make it a useful manual or how-to guide is a reason for deletion, not a reason for keeping it. The only reason why I did not mention that in the deletion log along with promotion is that only the latter was a reason for immediate speedy deletion.
2. The article was nominated for speedy deletion by D.Lazard as being purely promotional. As the administrator assessing that nomination, I looked not only at the latest version of the article, but at its history, right back to it initial creation in January. It was clear to me that from the start the article had failed to comply with a number of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including the fact that its overall tone and character seemed to be such as to encourage the reader to use the software, rather than to simply inform an interested reader what it is in neutral terms. That is to say, it sought to promote the software, so I agreed with D.Lazard' deletion nomination. It is perhaps worth pointing out that BWilkins, another administrator, has (above) expressed a third opinion, agreeing that it was promotional.
3. It would be possible to restore the article with a view to improving it, and it would equally be possible for someone to write a new article from scratch on the subject. It is my opinion that either of these courses would be a waste of time for whoever did it. The article would be taken straight to Articles for deletion, and I think it would be very unlikely to survive. The existing article would certainly not survive, as it fell foul of a number of Wikipedia policies, of which the policy against promotion is just one. It also failed more than one aspect of the policy on what Wikipedia is not, including the policies that Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, as the article was clearly written for the purpose of giving instructions to people who are encouraged to use it. For that reason, I think that restoring the article would serve little purpose. If there were to be an article on the subject, writing a new article from scratch, in a totally different spirit, would be more appropriate. However, I think it only fair to warn anyone thinking of doing so that I think they would probably be wasting their time. Both a check of what was contained in the article and my own searches have failed to produce any sign of the sort of coverage in independent reliable sources that are required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Any new article would be taken straight to Articles for deletion, and my assessment is that it would be unlikely to survive. I also doubt whether any of the people asking for the article to be saved would find much point in such an article in the unlikely event that it did survive. For the reasons I have described above, any such article would be radically different from the one that was deleted, and would not be written in a way that made it suitable for use as a manual for someone learning to use the software. My advice is that the people who want a manual on how to use this software for their students to use would be better advised to write one in a place that exists for such purposes, rather than in Wikipedia, which exists for a very different purpose. For example, surely one of the several universities that are mentioned above as having made use of the article could host such a manual on its web site. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

James, with all due respect, your recent actions and comments seem to be biased against NCLab. Here are few of your arguments that stand out: You said that some of the people who commented do not have a prior record of editing Wikipedia. Is this a requirement to comment on a talk page? You are diminishing their comments by pointing out that they have not used the proper wording about "usefulness" of the page. But you skipped what they actually are saying. If you indicate that someone (me?) sent them to the page, I did not but I am very grateful that they told you this. NCLab admins are now getting a large number of concerned reactions from users who used the Wikipedia page to reach the open source projects that they use through NCLab. While the page probably had a promotional tone, it was very useful for various open source projects. I find unusual the way you try to discourage people from re-creating the page in a different style. Few days ago you said that if the page was of interest, sooner or later someone will restore it. I certainly hope that you will not be the only admin who will review the page if/after someone re-creates it. Thank you PavelSolin (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Based upon your statement, it does not appear that you have read JamesBWatson's reply or that you understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with articles covering content about topics that have been previously published by reliable third party sources and presenting that information in an encyclopedic manner and from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not here to provide a free webhosting service for software instructions and promotion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I hope y'all will forgive me for barging in, but Pavel: I think you're not quite understanding some of the things James is trying to say. First, the "Articles for deletion" processed mentioned by James is primarily a community discussion. What happens is that discussion is created about whether the article should be deleted or not, according to Wikipedia's policies. Anyone can weigh in on this discussion, which runs for seven days. After the seven-day mark passes, an administrator will come along and judge consensus about the article based on the discussion. It's not a straight vote, though; it's wherever the strongest policy arguments are based. Though I can say with pretty strong confidence that James does not have a bias against NCLab, it wouldn't matter even if he did, since his would be only one voice of many within the discussion.

Now, as for policy, James is talking about much more than "the proper wording". You see, articles are not included or excluded based on how useful they are. After all, pretty much any article has to potential to be useful. The problem is more about notability, and its underlying principle of verifiability. On Wikipedia, we value reliability. Of course, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but we still strive to make it as reliable as we can. But, because user anonymity and freedom to edit are also things we value, we have no way of telling who's writing what and why, so we really can't just take people's word for it if we want to be reliable. The only way we can be at all sure of what we write about is by backing our information with citations to reliable sources, so that readers can see for themselves where our information is coming from. It bears repeating: our information is only as good as the sources that back it. Notability is a guideline we've developed to make sure that our articles have enough coverage in reliable sources. If they don't, then we have nothing to write verifiably about, and without anything verifiable, we have nothing of encyclopedic worth to put in an article. That's one of the reasons why notability, defined as significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, is the minimum standard for inclusion of articles. The appeals from the various users don't address the notability of the NCLab.

And just so you know, the creation of multiple accounts, or use of multiple IP addresses, by one person posing as many people to influence a deletion decision is a very common tactic on Wikipedia. It's called sockpuppetry and is not allowed. I don't know whether you're doing it in this instance or not, but the use of many IPs and freshly-created accounts with no other edits is one of the hallmarks of the all-too-common sockpuppetry, so James isn't making accusations out of the blue. If you're really not using sockpuppets, then you don't need to worry about it; it won't influence the deletion decision anyway, since like I said, the deletion discussion isn't a straight vote. It'd be more effective for you to do some research and try to find independent reliable sources that can support the article and demonstrate its notability.

(and James, feel free to correct me as necessary!) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And even if it is not one individual posing as multiple individuals, multiple individuals who share a single purpose are treated as a single unit. The almost cookie cutter response from all of these new accounts and IPs will be treated as a single voice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to the two talk page stalkers who have taken the trouble to try to clarify things for PavelSolin.

PavelSolin, it does seem, as has already been suggested, that you have misunderstood some of the things I have written. I will make another attempt to clarify a few points.

1. You say that I "said that if the page was of interest, sooner or later someone will restore it". What I actually wrote, as you can confirm by looking above, is that if the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria then an independent person is likely to write about it. Being "of interest" is not at all the same as satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria.
2. I said that it was unusual, in fact unique, to have so many people posting to me about one deletion, and I wondered whether they had come independently or whether someone had alerted them to the deletion. You seem to think that I was suggesting that there would be something sinister if someone had done so, but in fact I was suggesting nothing of the sort. I was quite simply surprised at getting a whole string of messages about it, in a way that has never happened before, and I wondered whether they had all come independently, that is all. I also checked the editing history of those who had posted about it, and found that there were a couple of established editors, including yourself, but that most of the interest was from people who do not appear to be regulaar Wikiepdia editors. Since the vast majority of talk page posts come from established editors, I thought it was striking that so many outsiders had been attracted to this discussion, and thought it interesting enough to mention. I certainly did not wish to suggest or imply that having a history of editing Wikipedia is "a requirement to comment on a talk page". I am sorry that I gave that impression. It is true, as has been mentioned above, that sometimes a string of apparently new editors is a case of sockpuppetry. However, I genuinely did not think that was so on this occasion, nor did I intend to imply that I thought it was.
3. You say that I am "diminishing their comments by pointing out that they have not used the proper wording about 'usefulness' of the page". However, it is not merely a question of proper wording: it is a question of the concept they are referring to. Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia articles are not manuals or instruction guides, and being "useful" does not feature at all in Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Yes, I was "diminishing their comments" by pointing out that they are irrelevant to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, but that is not my choice, it is a matter of what Wikipedia's policies say.
4. You say that "NCLab admins are now getting a large number of concerned reactions from users who used the Wikipedia page to reach the open source projects that they use through NCLab". The message to take home from that is that it was a mistake to try to use Wikipedia as a free web host to host content for use in this way. No doubt the people who decided that Wikipedia was the place to publish a manual on the software did so in good faith, thinking that it was within the acceptable range of things to post on Wikipedia, but unfortunately it was, as I said, a mistake. Much better to have it somewhere where you have full control, and it is not liable to deletion.
5. You say that you "find unusual the way you try to discourage people from re-creating the page in a different style". It is not, in fact, unusual at all, at least not for me. I very frequently give similar advice to editors who have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia and had an article deleted. The reason I do so is that over the years I have very, very often seen the following happen. Someone puts some time and effort into writing an article, but it is deleted for some reason, such as because it infringes copyright, or because it seems promotional. The person then puts more time and effort into rewriting the article, in a way that addresses the reason for deletion. It is deleted again, for a different reason. The person writes it again, addressing the new deletion reason, and sees it deleted yet again, for a third reason... I can imagine, as no doubt you can, how frustrating that must be. Consequently, instead of just saying "the article has been deleted for such and such a reason", I choose to explain all the potential problems that I can foresee. This takes me far more time and effort than it would take me to simply write a two sentence statement of the reason for the first deletion. The one and only reason why I take this extra trouble is to try to help editors to avoid the frustrating and time wasting experience I have just described.
6. This is my third message to try to help you and others understand the situation with respect to this deletion. I have not kept count of how much time it has taken me to draft these three messages, but it has been considerable. You seem to think that my messages are written in bad faith, that I "seem to be biased against NCLab", that I am implying wickedness on the part of editors who come here to express concerns about the deletion, that what I have said about Wikipedia policy has been some sort of malicious interpretation of my own, and so on. I hope that, after this latest attempt at clarification, you now realise that your interpretation was mistaken. If, however, you still hold the same view of my attempts to help, then I doubt that there is any point in my throwing away yet more of my time in trying to clarify what I said. You are perfectly free, if you wish, to write another article on the subject. If you do so then you will find out for yourself whether my advice not to spend time doing so was good or bad advice. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I think that it would be possible to trace the IP addresses of the people who commented above to different countries. Trust me that I did not write any of these comments except where I was signed. I appreciate your effort to keep Wikipedia clean from promotional materials and I admitted that the article probably had promotional tone. But it was not a manual, I do not know why you keep repeating this. Other projects such as Sympy or Sage (and many others, much smaller than NCLab) also present themselves. Presentation of NCLab certainly can be done in an impartial way, so the only problem left is notability of the project. Correct me if I am wrong. Getting constructive guidance on this topic would be very helpful. There are more than 10000 free users but I can't show them to you. They come to NCLab to learn and work, not to write about it. Would it help to show that NCLab was referenced in scientific articles? There are several free open source textbooks related to NCLab that are used at K-12 schools and where people are contributing (see http://femhub.com/textbook-karel, http://femhub.com/textbook-python, http://femhub.com/textbook-cad). But I do not know how to prove that except for getting letters from the schools. Links to NCLab are included at official web pages of universities in various countries. It would take me time to collect them but I will do that if you can let me know whether this is the way to go. Thank you, PavelSolin (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's still not quite it; notability is more about what independent reliable sources have to say about the subject. Links to NCLab on official school web pages is the closest of the things you mentioned, but that's still not enough; it doesn't meet the "significant coverage" criterion. It's more like an article in a reputable newspaper or magazine that discusses NCLab. That kind of thing, where NCLab is talked about in detail by a reputable third-party entity that's not affiliated with NCLab itself, is what we're looking for when we're talking about notability. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this is helpful. The primary audience so far has been K-12 education. High school teachers or kids do not write many papers. But there already are scientists who use NCLab for research. We will ask them to cite the project as a resource (which they should do automatically) or even write a paper about it. This will take some time though. Would you be willing to consider a simple informative page about the project that would mention the existing references, even though they do not include a journal publication yet? PavelSolin (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from another talk page stalker: the chorus of people begging for this page back say things like

• "it gives teachers a point of reference when looking at my projects"
• "I was able to point my students to this page when introducing them to NCLab. It saved me so much time, and students... were able to read about other details of this system on their own."
• "it also contained valuable and helpful information, which facilitated using NCLab as a tool in classes on numerical methods."
• "I use the article about NCLab at Wikipedia as a reference for my students."

This suggests that they want Wikipedia to host something like a system reference guide, but that is not what an encyclopedia is here to provide, and any article acceptable to Wikipedia would not serve that purpose. The place for that is the website of the system itself - why is this NCLab website not the place for the system description you can point your students to?

We often have a similar argument with people who want their companies' articles to list all the company's products and services. If an article is written to be useful to the customer (or in this case the student) it is at the wrong level for a general encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The primary audience of Boys' Life is teenage boys, who do not write papers. Sesame Street target audience is preschoolers who do not write papers. BUT they stiil are covered by many reliable third party sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I feel that the nature of the arguments is changing. Some the rhetoric that is used on this talk page now could be used against any software project at Wikipedia. All of them list their features. Some even have the photos of their authors. Some contain lots of computer code -- is this how a project should be presented to general public? Many of the pages only reference themselves. The way NCLab was presented was the result of an attempt to present the project in the best possible way. Overdone, accepted. But I think that the language could be fixed or the page could be rewritten by someone else, and still this could be an over-average software project page. Instead the page was just killed, within hours, without warning. And after being removed for promotional language, the argument against its restoration was changed to notability. The user base of NCLab is growing so it can be expected that there will be publications in reliable third party sources. In the early stage of this discussion, Mr. Watson said that if there is an attempt to restore the page, it will be marked for deletion right away. Please measure all software project pages with the same meter. Thank you for any consideration, PavelSolin (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• "We will ask them to cite the project as a resource (which they should do automatically) or even write a paper about it. This will take some time though." Do you mean you will try to get papers written about it for the purpose of making the subject seem more notable than it really is, so that you can use that as a justification for having a Wikipedia article on it?
• I wonder how many people would think that a paper written specifically for the purpose of making a subject appear notable so that it could be included in Wikipedia was a reliable independent source. My experience is that in the past, when people have done things like creating web pages about a subject just so they can cite their own web pages as sources in Wikipedia, those web pages have had about zero plausibility in the Wikipedia community.
• Other unsuitable articles on software exist, yes. So did this one for 10 months, until D.Lazard spotted it and nominated it for deletion. If you know of other specific articles that do not comply with Wikipedia policies, then please take appropriate action, i.e. editing them to make them comply if possible, or nominating them for deletion if they have no reasonable chance of being made to comply. The fact that some bad articles exist does not justify the existence of other bad articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback from Blackmane

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

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

deletion of Effectrode stub

I would be grateful if you would not delete articles (ref: Effectrode) without justification. I was working on updating this article and then found it had disappeared. Poor etiquette on your part. The article has been substantially edited and contains valid content. Please could you at least inform me or open a dialogue before simply deleting my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogolplex (talk • contribs) 11:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not delete the article "without justification". As for informing you, you were informed about the deletion discussion, and knew that it had resulted in a consensus to delete. When you re-created the article you will have been confronted with a prominent notice reminding you of that deletion and of the deletion discussion that led to the deletion. In addition, even if the article had not been a recreation of a deleted one, it did not show significance of its subject, and could have been speedily deleted on those grounds. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my articles

Okay, can you advise what an article needs to "show significance of its subject"? Several 3rd party references from professional and reputable sources were cited in this article. Also, for reference, I examinined Wikipedia for similar articles with similar subject matter, for example Strymon (company). Not only is the deletion of the Effectrode article unjustified, but there is also an obvious inconsistency here. Additionally, the two articles submitted were removed with such zeal and so rapdily there was not sufficient for me or any other peers to edit and improve them. --Moogolplex (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Justin Friesen

Why did you delete the page Justin Friesen without nominating it and bringing it to a discussion? I think more discussion could certainly have been made. (Yohowithrum (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC))

Because, as you know, it had already been discussed. Wikipedia policy is that, if a deletion discussion has already taken place and a deleted article is re-created without addressing the issues that led to deletion, then we do not spend time on going through another discussion, but rather the article is speedily deleted. (Whether you or I agree or disagree with the policy is irrelevant, but for what it's worth have you considered what would be the consequence of starting a new discussion each time someone ignores the outcome of a deletion discussion? Any disruptive editor who wished to defy consensus could simply re-create the article each time it was discussed, resulting in the article being deleted for one minute every week and existing the rest of the time, while editors would waste their time repeating the same arguments over and over again.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The previous discussions were not based on new evidence of Notability, I thought you had carefully reviewed the situation and understood that. This was't a case of disruption, just notability based on new information. (Yohowithrum (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC))

Yes. In fact, I actually went to the trouble to state in the deletion log that I had considered your claims on the talk page and that, despite those claims, nothing in the current references suggested any more notability than before. I did that precisely in order to anticipate what you have just said. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That is subjective. The claims cover 5+ points on the notability guidelines. Why not air on the side of caution? I understand the "Other stuff exists argument", but there are 1000s of other Canadian Actors/Directors who have similar pages, with 1-4 lines of text and are left alone - just because they were made years ago and slipped through the cracks. Justin's contemporaries over at List of Etobicoke School of the Arts people are chalk full of these types of pages, less notable than friesen. Justin Friesen's page has just been picked on, and is forever stigmatized with these closures. Yohowithrum (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you understand the point of WP:OTHERSTUFF then I think you have answered your own argument. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a deletion argument though. This is an argument for the lack of a deletion discussion. Yohowithrum (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• *blink* Reading that "article" made my eyes hurt. Sadly, any suggestion of actual notability was unsourced. Much of the rest was horribly/improperly sourced. This was a burn with fire deletion, and thankfully so. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty malicious sounding language guys. You're being pretty condescending and nasty. Relax. It's Wikipedia. Yohowithrum (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non) speedy deletion of Mathomatic

First of all, thank you for the speedy deletion of NCLab. I have also proposed to G11-speedy delete Mathomatic, which a non sourced article about a software written by the author of the article (see my post on the talk page). Another admin has declined the speedy deletion with the summary "As reviewing admin, I think this at least somewhat informative, and not entirely promotional, so speedy deletion declined". This suggest that this admin is against removing WP:OR from WP. Looking further, it appears that User:Gesslein, which is the author of the WP article Mathomatic and of the eponymous software states in his user page: "This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians". The user page User:DGG of the admin who has declined the speedy deletion and the corresponding edit summary suggest that this admin is close to this association.

What shall I do in this situation? In fact, there are several problems.

• If I nominates the article to WP:AFD, all the inclusionists will probably pollute the consensus
• Is it possible to appeal for a declined speedy deletion?
• Do has this admin acted as an admin is supposed to do? If not, what should I do?

--D.Lazard (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As soon as I read your message as far as "As reviewing admin..." I knew who the admin was. The only time that expression ever appears in Wikipedia is when DGG is declining a deletion. DGG is a reasonable and intelligent administrator, and is not an irrational "inclusionist" like some wikipedia editors, but he is certainly much further towards inclusionism than any other admin I can think of offhand.

My own view of the article is that it is essentially promotional in character, but borderline for speedy deletion. In fact, I considered deleting it myself before you tagged it, but decided it was not quite blatant enough promotion for me to be sure about doing so.

In answer to "is it possible to appeal for a declined speedy deletion", it is by no means uncommon for a second speedy deletion nomination to succeed after a first one has been declined. However, this is usually in cases where the first one has been unreasonably declined, most often (though not always) by a non-admin. In a case like this one, where declining the speedy deletion was debatable but not grossly unreasonable, I think the only reasonable way to proceed, if you still want deletion, is to take it to AfD. It sometimes does happen that "all the inclusionists" try to "pollute the consensus", but there is no certainty that that will happen, and if it does there is no certainty that they will succeed. Most admins who review AfD discussions are capable of seeing when a load of people join in a discussion to try to rig the result.

AfD is by no means certain to result in deletion for this article, but in my opinion the sources cited do not come near to establishing notability, so there is a reasonable chance that it might. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. D.Lazard (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Restoration of deleted articles

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like both Pedok and Tamm have know played for the Estonian national team meaning they meet WP:NFOOTBALL, so I won't be renominating them. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for moving my page-in-progress

Thanx for moving my article-in-process to the correct user space. I messed up developing a "user sub-page." My first WP post. sigh. MEMarraMA MEMarraMA (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Josh and S.A.M.

Hello James, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as I think the film is notable. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 00:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Tow users user:zeeyanketu and user:Ashermadan are disrupting the page of Son of sardaar

user:Ashermadan in one of his edit at 07:59, 13 November 2012‎(UTC) has removed everything totallly blanked the page of SOS.so i restored it .and user:Zeeyanketu is hell bent on merging the son of sardaar (soundtrack) page to this main page without a discussion on talk pag .a detailed and thorough discussion.i have removed unncessary reviews from the table,anyhow i will bring more genuine sources of review and then add to that tablebut please check these two vandalising users. --Filmonline111 (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

User:JHUSPO

Hello, James. I would like to ask a block against JHUSPO for harassment and socking (his rant in my talk-page seems to be a retaliation to this). Plus, all his contributions constitute vandalism (blatant violation of WP:OVERLINK and WP:EGG); could we automatically revert them? Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a really strange case. Every edit, apart from creating a user page, has been to pages which you have edited, which is way beyond any plausible chance coincidence, and yet, apart from the rant on your talk page, none of them seems to have any obvious connection with the edits you made. However, both the post to your talk page and similarities to edits by blocked accounts in the SPI you mention point to this being a sockpuppet, so I have blocked the account. I have also reverted several of the account's edits that I regarded as unconstructive. If you wish to revert more of them that is up to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a typical case of wikihounding. Regarding the violation of WP:EGG: part of Plouton2's campaign was/is to replace "Ancient Greek" with "[[ancient Greece|ancient]] [[Ancient Greek|Greek]]" in random Wikipedia articles. Anyway, thanks for your time and assistance. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My wikipedia page was blocked/deleted by you

I was assigned to create a Wikipedia page about Digital Consumer Experience for my grad class at Bellevue University. According to you I have messed up per rule G11. How do I get my page back to edit it accordingly?

Thanks, Gregg Mattox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.203.221.241 (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to log in to your account and request an unblock on your user talk page. In your unblock request, explain what you were trying to do, and make it clear. An administrator will consider your request. If you are unblocked, I consider restoring the page for you, or maybe another administrator, such as the one who unblocks you will do it for you. Until you are unblocked you must not edit anywhere other than on your talk page. If you continue to edit without logging in to your account that will be regarded as block evasion, and the IP address you are editing from will be blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

... From what I understand, you deleted my account. How do I login to request to unblock it? When I try to login as gmattox, nothing. Please be patient with me as I'm a newbie at Wikipedia. Thanks, Gregg Mattox

(talk page stalker) The user Gmattox does exist ... usernames are case sensitive. Nobody can delete accounts :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I have undeleted the sandbox, however I see no reason for the contents to be a separate article ... it merely builds on the online aspects of customer experience and would belong as a section on that very very short article. Arguably, a redirect or 2 could point to it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank McCrystal

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Talk:Frank McCrystal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ngabirano Emmanuel

Hello! You recently speedy-deleted the above article without realizing it was at AfD. (The article's author had removed the tag.) A few days later you realized it and closed the AfD. During the course of that AfD the article had been moved to Emmanuel Ngabirano, which you also deleted. But User:Ngabirano Emmanuel immediately recreated it; I think this is the second or possibly the third time they have restored this article after deletion (you would have access to those records as I do not). This author may need a stern talking-to; issues now include recreating deleted articles, writing autobiographical articles, and (apparently) running two accounts, User:Ngabirano Emmanuel and User:Emmanuel Ngabirano Nshema. I assume these things are done in innocence of the rules rather than deliberate defiance - the poor quality of the article suggests a limited knowledge of English - but they are still a problem. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked both accounts, salted the article, and gave him a reading list including WP:AUTO, WP:EW and WP:BRD before requesting unblock. JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have done much the same, but I was busy getting a cup of coffee, so you were able to beat me to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You have very efficient talk page stalkers! ;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

CSD Nominations

Thank you for going through all the CSDs I've been tagging. Please let me know if I miscategorize as I'm a bit new to NPP/CSD and would gladly invite any feedback. Cheers. Odie5533 (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, when that message arrived, I was actually thinking about posting a message to your talk page thanking you for your good work. I haven't yet seen any problems with your tagging. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialist Studies (2005)

I note you recently speedily deleted the above-noted article on the grounds of unambiguous copyright infringement. I was the original contributor of that page but didn't receive any notice of the deletion. I had a look at my local copy of the article text, the current Socialist Studies web page, and past versions of it from archive.org. At the time of its creation, the only text the Wikipedia article had in common with the official web page was the phrase "will adopt a critical perspective which will shed light on, and offer remedies for, any form of social, economic, or political injustice". This ought to have been either paraphrased or put in quotation marks with a reference to the source. (I don't have any recollection as to why it wasn't. I think you already know from my work at WP:CP, WP:CCI, etc. that I was as familiar with copyright laws and policy then as I was now. I can only assume that this was a very glaring oversight on my part.) Anyway, given that the remaining text in the article was entirely original, either of these solutions would have been preferable to deleting the article. I can see why you thought the entire article was a copyright infringement, though: apparently Socialist Studies copied and pasted text from the Wikipedia article into their official website when it was redesigned some time in 2011 or 2012. This included not only the original unattributed quotation, but also some extra text surrounding it.

Perhaps you could restore the article; I'll source or reword the problematic phrase and you can revdel the offending entries from the page history. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the article, and will let you edit it as you think fit. Sorry I somehow forgot to notify you of the deletion, I certainly intended to. For the publishers to copy and paste text from Wikipedia is odd: do you have any link to show them doing it? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the page. It looks like, after my initial creation of the article, other editors added a lot of text to it; some of this text also appears on the Socialist Studies website. I'll investigate who copied from whom and let you know what I find. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. It looks like the only problems with the article were the phrase mentioned above, which was added by me, and one sentence added by User:Passport19 but copied from http://www.socialiststudies.com/index.php/sss. I rephrased the former and removed the latter. If you think it's necessary you can revdel all the previous revisions of the page.

Regarding the back-and-forth copying, you can see the Socialist Studies website at roughly the time I created the article via the Wayback Machine archive. Notice the "will adopt a critical perspective…" phrase, which occurs as part of a longer sentence, and which I mistakenly copied verbatim into the Wikipedia article as part of a slightly different sentence. However, if you visit the current version of the journal's website you'll see that their longer sentence has been changed to match the different one I wrote on Wikipedia ("Typically, articles will adopt…"). I think that when their website was overhauled some time in the last year or so, some lazy copywriter decided to use the version from Wikipedia rather than rewrite their existing material. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

To save you the trouble...

... I've already requested oversight on User:Akis Kan's edits. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have replied to your comments about the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Noble {{Talkback|Jeremy Mark Noble} Jeremy Mark Noble (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey JamesBwatson sorry for deleting the photo i wanted to put a picture of the new generation safari (safari storme but i accidently deleted the photo. However i made my account just 2 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:CAE0:7586:A1A0:FD11:DE5D (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion of User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique

Hello. I am here to inquire about the recent speedy deletion of my User subpage in which I demonstrated why the writings of Jeffrey Woodward are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. The page cannot meet G10, since it was not an "attack page": it was intended solely as a concise summary of my arguments against this particular non-academic writer (who has made extremely offensive and ridiculous statements about Japanese literature and culture) and my reasons why he should not be cited or promoted via Wikipedia. The Wikipedia:Single-purpose account that nominated it has been attempting repeatedly to post Woodward-inspired material onto Wikipedia and to undermine my edits on unrelated pages. I created the page solely so I wouldn't have to constantly repeat the same arguments against said single-purpose account. I don't see how a page I created in my user space, which did not threaten or attack any particular person, should be deleted. It also cannot meet G11, since it was not promotional in any way -- unlike most of the material added by the single-purpose account that nominated the page. If the page must remain deleted, can I at least get some advice on dealing with this particularly disruptive user in a more constructive manner? I have tried taking a Wikibreak, but that didn't work; I tried ignoring his edits and going back to only editing articles related to my area of interest (Japanese literature), but he continued to post spam on those pages; I tried going and editing completely unrelated pages, but he followed me there and continued posting personal attacks and attempting to undermine my edits. I don't honestly understand the procedures for RfC and Arbitration, but I am beginning to tire of the constant Wikihounding of this user. :( elvenscout742 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have restored the page. It comes fairly close to being an attack page, and it certainly exists to promote a point of view. However, on reflection, in the context in which it exists, and as a userspace page, I think it was a mistake to delete it. Please accept my apology. I have added a "no index" tag to it, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. Thank you for your kind consideration of the circumstances. I will alter the language so it does not give the false impression of being an attack page. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocking a range of IP's

I wasn't signed in and went to fix a broken link on a page and got this:

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.

You are still able to view pages, but you are now not able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 99.181.128.0/19 has been blocked (disabled) by JamesBWatterm disruptive editor who ignores all messages about consesnsus etc, and evades blocks.

This block has been set to expire: 20:57, 23 November 2012.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and E-mail other editors and administrators.

I really don't understand the need to block a whole range of IP's -- simply blocking the offending IP should be a sufficient deterrent in most cases. Even if it is not a static IP most people don't know the difference. I understand you have good intentions as an active Wikipedia editor but this seems a bit arbitrary and authoritarian, it is likely ineffective at stopping a determined vandal, who could simply use a proxy server to get around the block.

Did you do a a WHOIS and Reverse DNS lookup on the IP address? You are blocking anyone using AT&T Internet Services in a large area of west Michigan. Based on the rangeblock calculator at http://toolserver.org/~chm/blockcalc.php up to 8192 users are being blocked. Do you believe that that is a proportional response? 8192 seems like heavy collateral damage given the nature of the problem.

Infohack (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

1. "Simply blocking the offending IP should be a sufficient deterrent in most cases." Yes, indeed, and in the overwhelming majority of cases I block no more than one IP address. However, because a particular course of action is not justified "in most cases", it does not follow that it is not justified in exceptional cases.
2. "Did you do a a WHOIS and Reverse DNS lookup on the IP address?" Certainly I did. I wouldn't dream of doing such a range block without doing so.
3. The toolserver statement that "up to 8192 users" will be blocked is misleading. It means "up to 8192 IP addresses". A study of a random sample of 200 of those IP addresses indicates that well over 90% of those IP addresses have never been used for editing Wikipedia. Over 99% of them have not edited Wikipedia during the last 18 months. Of the very few that have edited in that time, it is perfectly clear that each of them was used by just one person for a brief time. ("A brief time" is sometimes a matter of minutes, rarely more than a matter of hours, and never more than a few days.) Even if each of the IP addresses was used by a different person, the number of people likely to affected by a three month block will be a tiny fraction of the figure of 8192 that you quote. Moreover, it is clear from the nature of the edits that it is not a question of a number of users each using one IP address. It is perfectly obvious that almost all of the edits have been from one person, who moves on to a new IP address frequently. Based on the full editing history (not just a sample) from the IP range in recent months, the expectation of the number of editors affected is about two, including the disruptive editor who was responsible for the block being imposed.
4. "It is likely ineffective at stopping a determined vandal, who could simply use a proxy server to get around the block." Nothing we can do is guaranteed to stop a determined vandal who knows enough to get round blocks. However, in practice, blocking usually does stop vandals, and even when it doesn't it slows them down. The fact that a method is not always effective is not a reason for not using it in the large proportion of cases where it is effective.
5. I blocked for three months. If my only concern had been with stopping the disruption, the block would have been for a period of several years, but it was drastically reduced to minimise collateral damage. On the one hand we have a huge number of disruptive edits by one disruptive editor over a period of years, and on the other hand a tiny number of edits by others, with long gaps between them. Based on statistics of past use, the block stands to stop hundreds of disruptive edits, and about one constructive edit. Range blocking is a last resort, because there is always a risk of collateral damage, but when the likely benefit outweighs the likely damage in such a huge ratio, it can be justifiable.
6. I never make any kind of range block, even for one day on a range covering 4 IP addresses, without first checking the history of the edits from that range over a time period substantially longer than the time of the range, to assess the cost/benefit relationship. If there has been more than a tiny handful of constructive edits in that time period, then I don't block, even if the number of disruptive edits has been enormous.
7. Almost all of your complaint seems to be about the practice of range blocking in general, rather than with the circumstances of this particular block. If you think that range blocking should never be done, then this is the wrong place to complain, because what you want is a change in Wikipedia's blocking policy, and objecting to one administrator because he or she implements that policy is missing the point.
8. A little while before reading your message I was reading another editor's complaint. I had refused to increase an IP block on a vandal who jumps from one IP address to another from two days to six months. I did not do so because it seems to me that doing so is unlikely to increase the effectiveness in terms of stopping the vandal, and just possibly might cause collateral damage. If in one day I get a complaint because I am not ready enough to impose lengthy IP blocks and another complaint because I am too ready to do so, what should I think? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Prod on article Jeremy Noble

Hi. I removed your recent prod of the Jeremy Noble article because the article was previously prodded and contested, but it did not have the prod tag on the talk page. I added to the prod tag to the talk page so other editors will know that it has already gone through the prod process. I spoke to the author of the page and he is worried that the article may still be deleted. My opinion is that the subject appears notable based on the first two sources, which are independent, as well as articles I found online which review his writings and praise him as well. The author also wrote a reply to the prod here. Please let me know if you have any immediate plans to AFD the page since the author would like to know if he needs to work more on the article to ensure it is not deleted. Thank you. Odie5533 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it had not previously had a PROD. It had had a PRODBLP, which, despite the similar name, is a quite different thing, and does not prevent subsequent posting of a PROD. However, your comments here clearly amount to contesting the PROD, so I will not restore it. I have no current intention of taking it to AfD, but if I decide to in the future then I would think the week that will be given will be enough time for a defence. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, and you are correct. I was only reading the page on PRODBLP which made it sound like it counted as a PROD; however, WP:PROD states that it can be applied even if the PRODBLP is removed. Thank you for correcting me, and I will update the user on article's status. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 20:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I was, at first, puzzled by this message. It took me a while searching through page histories before I found why you think I "may have been involved". Many months ago I made one talk page post, which I had completely forgotten. However, thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

HRW Hill article

Thank you for your help. I was reading the article I had submitted on HRW Hill and some links to the information that was at the top about verification, and thought perhaps I had done too much original research and so I deleted the whole thing for fear of doing it wrong. Let me know what you think. It's been several months since the original article posted. I appreciate your help. Drbrop (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)DrBrop

I apologise. I clearly did not check carefully enough, and did not realise that you had written the article, and nobody else had made any significant contribution. In that situation, normal practice is that if you remove all content it is taken as a request for deletion of the article, so I should have deleted it, rather than restoring the content and giving you a warning message. I have now deleted it. As for whether you had "done too much original research", I don't know, as I have not checked all the references to see how much of what you said is sourced. However, I do think that in places you seemed to be expressing opinion, rather than reporting objectively, as for example "The influential testimony of Hill", and at times your tone was perhaps not as formal as is considered desirable, as for example "Hill became interested in a young lady..." JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

the tone of the article came over

Nguyenducloc1997

Returned off the 48 hour block and is right back to adding unsourced information and synthesis, along with 113.190.183.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). As you suggested, I'm asking for a semi of Discovery Science Channel (South East Asian TV channel), Discovery Communications, Discovery Channel (South East Asian TV channel) and deletion of Template:TrueVisions, which isn't used in any articles and all redirect to TrueVisions anyways. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 21:48, 17 Novemb

cunt FU(K