User talk:JBW

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 five days 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.

Confirmation for rework

James, please confirm if I can rework the above article Article link with suggested changes i.e. rechecking the language to eliminate any possibility of “Promotional” reflection and further filtering references. Thanks

Aaanshu (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what you mean. Certainly you may re-edit your draft to try to write it in a non-promotional way, if that's what you mean. However, you may like to consider first whether the subject satisfies the notability guidelines. No amount of rewriting an article will make the subject of the article notable if it isn't notable. I don't know whether the subject is notable, but I have not yet seen anything to suggest that he is. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Of "Mervyns Advanced Retail Systems".

I would like to be informed why you have Deleted My Article. I have left a message saying to "Get more info" if possible. Please, I still dont remember those retail systems after the years of "Mervyns' Bankruptcy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robby421 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 December 2012‎

(talk page stalker) There was not enough detail to be an article, and no references. "Get more info" does not cut it - the article has to meet basic standards (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Presumably you have seen the deletion log entry, as otherwise you would not know that I had deleted the article. As you will see if you look back there, it was deleted because there was not enough context to identify the article's subject. The article told us that it was "a System used for Mervyns Department Stores", but it did not tell us what system, what it was used for, when, what Mervyns Department Stores were, or anything else that would enable a user to know what "Mervyn's Advanced Retail Systems" actually was. That was why it ws deleted. However, I now see that the subject is covered at Mervyns, and it seems, on the basis of what I have been able to find, unlikely that there is any justification for having a separte article on the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

Hi -- I think this is the same as the two you revdel-ed. Thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind -- I wrote too soon... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

IP v. Apokryltaros

Take a look at the edit comment --91.10.56.74 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You're unpleasantly uncivil, totally unwilling to consider other sides beyond your own, and apparently obsessed with petty bickering.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You're unpleasantly uncivil, totally unwilling to consider other sides beyond your own and apparently obsessed with petty bickering. --91.10.56.74 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

And harassing and insulting me will make me agree with you how?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What you call harassment was a direct reply to your question.

I call bullshit on the insult claim. Please provide a difflink.

More important, please continue the conversation on the talk pages. --91.10.56.74 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The elevator vandal

...is back in action at Portal talk:Current events/2009 July 25 using 67.204.50.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I've tagged it, so the link may be red by the time you read this. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

...and again: Portal talk:Current events/2012 November 17 using 67.55.7.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). -- John of Reading (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Association of Business Executives(UK)

There is a discussion at ANI on the speedy deletion of above page. Could you please respond there.EconomicTiger (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion is archived, could be please explain me why you opted for speedy deletion without adding service tag on promotion/advertisement(if that is the case). I am considering to take this issue for the Wikipedia:Deletion review.EconomicTiger (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It took me some time to find the relevant deletion. There is no record of there ever having been an article called either Association of Business Executives(UK) or Association of Business Executives (UK). Searching through the last 3000 entries in the logs of my actions, I eventually found that I had deleted an article Association of Business Executives, which must be what you mean.

An editor known as Afterwriting tagged the article for speedy deletion as promotional. In my capacity as the administrator reviewing the deletion nomination, I saw that indeed the article was thoroughly promotional from start to finish. If you sincerely did not see it that way, then I can only conclude that one or both of the following applies: (1) you are so closely involved in the subject that you are unable to stand back from it and see how your writing will look from the perspective of a detached, independent observer; (2) you work in marketing, and are so used to marketing speak that you have become desensitised to it, and cannot see it when it is in front of you. The promotional character dominated the whole article, and did not consist merely of a few details which could easily have been edited out without substantial rewriting. Guidelines provide that in that situation the article should be speedily deleted. Although the immediate consideration that led to deletion was the blatantly promotional nature of the article, I also found that the article was a re-creation of one which had been deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, so I mentioned that too in the deletion log. The new article was not identical to the deleted one, but it did not address the issues which led to deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I may have some interest over the subject, but not monetarily. Some Interest is the fundamental factor why thousands of volunteers are tirelessly working to expand the Wikipedia without any payment. After I have created, there are number of other editors too involved for its expansion. I have modeled the page initially based on Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. Can you please explain me, if you find Association of Business Executives is a promotional piece, why Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and Chartered Institute of Management Accountants can't be promotional pieces as well.EconomicTiger (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Solis BioDyne

Why on earth did you James B Watson place a Tag on a private company in this case Solis BioDyne's general description of its own link to the company? All the links are verifiable along with the references. You are engaging in abuse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daren Clare (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not at all sure what you mean by "place a Tag on a private company". As far as I know, the only two things I have done relating to Solis BioDyne are (1) deleting the article Solis BioDyne, and (2) posting a message to your talk page, informing you of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, which I did because I got the impression that you were probably working for Solis BioDyne. I can only assume that your referring to "Solis BioDyne's general description of its own link to the company" is a confirmation of that conflict of interest. As for the deletion, it was because the article was unambiguous advertising. That was explained to you both in the deletion log entry telling you that I had deleted the article, and in the message on your talk page posted there by the editor who nominated the article for deletion. The simple fact is that Wikipedia is not a free advertising service, and does not exist to serve as a medium for businesses to publicise their own preferred image of themselves. The fact that "the links are verifiable along with the references" is irrelevant, because the article was not deleted because of lack of verifiability. In what way do you think I am "engaging in abuse"? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promega, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattromed As these were used as templates for a general history of the company with verifiable references how is it objectionable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daren Clare (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it was promotional. Whether or not the other articles you link to are equally promotional is irrelevant: maybe they need deleting too. You may find it helps to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP returns, same thing

Hello, an IP user you blocked on November 16th following failure to follow WP:BRD and edit warring, 76.29.137.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), returned less than 48hrs after the block expiration and made the same edit he was blocked for forcing repeatedly without discussion. Do you think this warrants an immediate re-block or should more warnings be issued?

Note I haven't reverted the most recent edit yet, pending your reply here. Salvidrim! 00:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the IP address again, for a longer time, and dropped a note to the IP talk page asking for discussion, and pointing out the need to follow consensus. I see that the editor has been edit warring since 30 October, against consensus from a number of other editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

4 Deserts

Hello James. May I ask you to take a look at 4 Deserts, where 77.228.7.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding unreferenced information despite several requests for refs. I suspect this could be the same editor who has been using different IP addresses to sanitise the RacingThePlanet article to remove negative information - i.e. there's apparently a long term pattern of COI in these related articles. Thanks in advance. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the related subject matter of the two articles, I can't see any connection between the two cases. The IP addresses are from different continents. The editing at RacingThePlanet has been a totally unacceptable attempt to suppress information unfavourable to the business. At 4 Deserts, however, as far as I can see the only problem is that the editor has failed to provide sources. What is more, a quick Google search suggests to me that sources do exist for at least some of the content: for example, http://www.4deserts.com/rtp4dtp.php?SID=2&SBID=PDETAIL&id=94 gives Vicente Juan Garcia Beneito as the 2012 men's winner and Anne-Marie Flammersfeld as the women's winner, exactly as stated by the anonymous editor. I have semi-protected the article RacingThePlanet, but at 4 Deserts I don't see any need to do anything more than give the editor a friendly explanation of how to add sources, and help by adding one or more sources. However, if I have missed anything then please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's grand, thanks. I'll have a go over at 4 Deserts to try to get the refs sorted. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Brightify

Just wondering, but how is FanforClarl (talk · contribs) an earlier sockmaster when the account wasn't created until 7 November while Brightify began editing in October? In any case, if you're tagging accounts one way or another there's also Brightifying (talk · contribs) and the unblocked and recently unused Brightify2 (talk · contribs). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Earlier sockmaster: I don't know how I made that mistake. I must have misread something or other. Thanks.
2. Brightifying: Yes. A duck that I hadn't seen.
3. Brightify2: It took me a while to find evidence, beyond the username, that it was the same person, but there is plenty of evidence once you look for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't really looked into their socking before, just had Brightify's page still watched from dealing with some of their non-free image issues. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of "Olly_Foster" Page

Hi James,

Not sure if possible (technically) but please could you undo the deletion of the page "Olly Foster" as it is still work in progress.

Reason for deletion was cited as Promotion/Advertising - can you elaborate on this and then help me understand the difference between the Olly Foster page and the following pages for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Grant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Duck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Plitt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Williams

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noomo8 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

1. I have restored the article and "userfied" it at User:Noomo8/Olly Foster. You can work on it there, and move it back to Olly Foster when it is ready.
2. I don't have time now to examine the other article you link to in detail, but a quick glance at them shows that at least a couple of them contain promotional content which should be removed. It is natural for a new editor to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable, but unfortunately it is not a reliable guide. You may find it helpful to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Thanks James - much appreciated. Will ensure that the content and quality is increased before resubmitting.

Noomo8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Systems for Dentists

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

Hi James I have posted a message on the page. Could do with your opinion please.

hello James,

I just putting documented information on the world extreme skiing championships, real documentation. it is clear all posting represeent any post but if it that being the founded, as written and documented in the numerous articles sites and in the years TGR 2012 Movie "Dreams" I don't know what to say. Seems some people are really posting things. I actually started this post back in 2088 or something. People unrelated to the event it seems have taken a interest to promtoe their businesses what was there had nothing to do with the history: Example --a cancelled event in 2011 or doug open a heli ski operation in 1994. Those are not the history of the event. very clear. What was posted had real value and links to document it. When you actuallly creat things, like me, Michael Cozad, I wouldn't think posting written historical stories to wike would be a bad thing. Michael--I'm not hiding. who is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.199.141 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

Hi James, (I know its not your name, but Hi Anon just seems silly)

I just wanted to say thank you for the information you posted

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

, I have taken note of this, and just wonder if defunct journels from the 1980's are enough to satisfy.

Thanks again and have a pleasent night.

Nguyenducloc1997

Right back to their same behaviors and incorrect editing right after the block, and I put this article up for deletion because its only source is actually a testimonial site for plastic surgery, not a BBC network. User will not understand our image use and sourcing guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 00:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A while ago it looked to me as though some of the editing was probably deliberate vandalism, but the editor was given the benefit of the doubt. However, it is now completely clear: the article you mention was an unambiguous hoax. I have also, looking through the editing history, seen a lot more disruptive editing, of kinds that I hadn't known about before; for example, frequent falsifying of dates. The editor has gone through warnings, short blocks, etc, and clearly has no intention of changing, so I have blocked indefinitely. Unfortunately, history suggests that he/she will just come back as various IP addresses. I have put a range block for a couple of days on the IP range he/she has used recently. However, any more than a couple of days would be unacceptable, because of the likelihood of collateral damage. Do feel welcome to contact me again if (or more likely when) you see more from this disruptive person. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and looking over this activity again, I know it can be nagging; that article escaped my notice on the first sweep but after looking up Avia TV, it was obvious it wasn't a BBC network. And over the years I've learned to deal with IP socks so much (pretty much a top 3 priority for me), so I'll just keep fighting the good fight. As for my name, I've been receiving that confusion alot more lately (weirdly not in the past) and have pondered capping the S on WP:CHU (or even usurping Nate, esp. if I decide to submit for admin), but just never got around to it since it would cause double redirects everywhere. Nate • (chatter) 10:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Another Andres Unidos Cisneros SPA

See what you think about William Lo Giudice (talk · contribs). I have just spent some time giving him newbie advice, but looking at the whole history I think maybe a block is what he needs. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering whether to start a SPI. Editing only on Andres Unidos Cisneros and David Guetta, similar use of English as Alexandra aguilera. What exact combination of sock-/meat-puppetry is involved I can't say, but Andres Unidos Cisneros ( ID&T ), Alexandra aguilera, Andres Unidos Cisneros‎ and William Lo Giudice are clearly not independent. William Lo Giudice's edits, taken alone, justify friendly advice, rather than a block, but viewing it as a sockpuppet a block might be reasonable. As I have been writing this, my mind has drifted more towards a SPI. I think I will go there. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, particularly as Cisneros' claims to have been No.1 DJ for many years were false and they were mucking about with Guetta who really was No.1 DJ. JohnCD (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As I was preparing a case for an SPI, I discovered more evidence, and eventually decided that it was enough of a duck to block right away. However, I have gone ahead with the SPI, to ask for a CU ion case of sleepers. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A minor case of a returned sockpuppet

You may remember the sockpuppet I spoke of back in your Archive 41, Topic 10. He has I presume returned under the name User:ArealFatRabbit for the same malicious motive he has carried out before as User:PeterAmbrosia on the Kid Icarus article. I tried to contact Tnxman307 about it, but I realised too late, he was retired. That being said I shall move on and after this case is solved I shall no longer involve myself in this article problem if new sockpuppets of that same user continue to spring up. Deltasim (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have spent a long time looking at the editing history of the various accounts. There is certainly disruptive editing, and I think you may well be right about sockpuppetry. However, the whole thing is very complicated, and I can't find any smoking gun. Perhaps the best thing would be to take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. JamesBWatson (talk)

Okay I made my Sockpuppet report on the User:PeterAmbrosia page. Thank you for your advice and happy editing. Deltasim (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Yohowithrum COI and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

deletion of page krossover

i just got a message that you deleted the page krossover, may i know the reason as i am new to wikipedia i am not aware of many things, it will be kind of you if you reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibek4u (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you need to know about the reason for the deletion that has not already been explained to you on your talk page, and in the speedy deletion notice which you removed from the article? If you tell me what is not clear, then I will try to explain to you. However, at present I have no idea what might be unclear to you. You have had it explained to you that using Wikipedia for promotion is not acceptable, and you have had it explained to you that articles must be written from a neutral point of view. I am at a loss to know what more explanation you can need, since it is inconceivable that you could possibly have intended the article you wrote, full of such language as "we have developed a great business", "we set out to build a powerful product" etc etc, as anything other than promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Troll Editor on Jab Tak Hai Jaan Page

Hi, I need some help. I have tried reasoning with this man named "Zeeyanketu" but it is not working. Apparently he is a seasoned editor. I even got a consensus from many different editors on adding a section stating how odd the collection reports for the film were as there is a difference of 20% from various sources when normally the difference in collections is as little as 4-5%. The source we use, BOI, changes its numbers every day without giving an explanation and they might not be 100% reliable anymore due to conflicting interests. Either ways, I talked to other editors and told them to weigh in. All of them agree with me, even a friend of "Zeeyanketu" agrees with me. He keeps on reverting my edits about the conflicting reports which have RS sources and everything and is probably biased. He's the fan of some other actor and keeps on trolling the page. I can't say it's anything else other than trolling. I don't know what to do. As you said I should control my temper I am but this man is really testing my patience. Is there any way to block him from editing the Jab Tak Hai Jaan page? I can't take this anymore. I have spent months making this page from scratch pretty much. Months. I am not going to allow some random biased troll to undo hours and hours of work, reference hunting, so that he can exercise whatever idol-gratification he wants. What should I do? Can you ban him? How do I initiate proceedings to ban him? As I said, this has been going on for a few months now, I can't take it anymore. I really can't. Ashermadan (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Now he has started engaging in personal attacks and I have been very respectful. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jab_Tak_Hai_Jaan#Status Ashermadan (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow. Let's just say that your response to his comment "you Ashermadan cowardly poisoned others" (which is perhaps uncivil but it was not a personal attack) is incredulous. You certainly have no place complaining about incivility when you yourself tell them to "take an ESL class" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nizami

James, I add a lot of academical sources: Victor Schnirelmann, Yuri Slezkine, Walter Kolarz, Kamran Talattof, Sergei Panarin etc. with quotes about campaign. Is it enough? Divot (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

coi-username talk on User talk:Ecashin

Hi. Thanks for removing my edit to the Lamport's_bakery_algorithm page. I didn't understand the full conflict of interest policy well when I made that edit. My current understanding is that it's not OK to link to an implementation I created but it would be OK to paste the implementation into the wikipedia page. (I'm not sure, though, because that would be original work. With source code, it's both a clarifying example that augments the discussion and original work. The fuzziness of the issue makes me sympathetic to Wikipedia reviewers.) I made a suggestion on the Ecashin talk page for the notice that Alexf used to be split, so that in the future it's less confusing to other users than it was for me. Ecashin (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the message you left on my talk page regarding the 2 articles I created — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus Fingolfin (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Michigan IP - snowbird

Hi James, The extensive blocks around Grand Rapids have been quite effective for stopping, but not reforming this guy's editing. It seems he started driving further afield (public libraries?) to get around the blanket dropped on his home haunts. It also appears he is headed back to NW FL, from which he did much sockevasion in Oct. With a location in Indiana, it appears he drove back to vote, and is now heading to the sun again.

Please consider restarting all the block clocks listed in "Future dates" at Artur's tracking page, and synchronizing them all to end on the same date (3 months?) except for ones already set to last longer. I would not be surprised to need some FL blocks as well, but we'll see what happens in the next few weeks. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

PS, Earlier you mentioned you wished there was something more we could do, and I had an idea. Even if this guys edits are reverted, he habitually puts his external link spam links in the edit summaries... That way, even if it is reverted from the article or talk page it still shows up in version histories and watchlists, and that might be enough to feed his obsession. It would be a wonderful anti-spam tool to be able to easily purge the edit summaries of spammed external links from blocked users, sort of like rollbacker but for edit summaries. Is there such a power? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Rifair

Sorry about not responding there quickly enough ... I let it get behind me. But you're right, it was an unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wheel Spinner / Apology

• • • Gentleman, J.D. Gragg here. I owe you an apology! Recently at the end of June 2012 had my identity stolen and several accounts hacked including very confidential information. You all seem you be very Internet savvy so I am sure you can understand just how upsetting and infuriating the event had been for me including my family, of which was the worst part of it. My investigator has just finished up with his duties and contacted me and I have found that the Wikipedia event was nothing more than pure coincidence. The main reason it did not appear this way to me was I had a lot of trouble believing that a true Wikipedia editor would edit and completely delete entire blocks and sections, including the picture that another Wiki editor then had to then reinsert, and that it was done "anonymously" at first, but then created an account just a few minutes later plus it appeared to be his very first edit, not to mention he was incapable of spelling the simplistic word "referring". Then the fact that it was edited for all "cites linking to personal or self-promotional websites" was incorrect. The only cite link back to any of my websites was the one linked to my personal name. All other cites were to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office along with cites to the U.S. Federal Court system East and West coasts, so I am sure, well I hope rather, that you can understand my position, confusion and knee-jerk reactions to all of this and accept my apologies for the entire event, as the apology is indeed sincere. I do understand that all of you do a tremendous amount of work and do it for the love of it and not monetary gain, that is for sure. So in closing, please accept my apology and should you ever require anything that I could do to make this horrid event up to you please feel free to ask. I am easily contacted via Google should you not already have my contact.

On a side note, please keep the mention of the Modern Day Wheel Spinner clean of misinformation as I still have licensing active around the globe into the 2020's and Wikipedia being international does reach them all. As for the confusion about phrasing, I have been throughout the U.S. Federal Courts and it is important that the Modern Day Wheel Spinner is not confused with the cheap spinning inferior hubcaps that trailed into the market place on the cheap end of the craze. Also, that the spinning hubcap that you have cited actually functions as a "stationary non-spinning hubcap" and has been reviewed throughout the original patent issue, again later validating the patent in the U.S. Federal Courts by U.S. Federal Judges and Magistrate Judges that specialize in IP's, plus the top 2% of Intellectual Property attorneys that were involved being the best in the field and was not, I repeat was not found to be "Prior Art". Just as an FYI that picture of the Modern Day Wheel Spinner you are using has been reviewed and is an illegal clone from China, just to let you know. So again please accept my sincerest apology. Nothing but the best of high regards to the all of you! James J.D. Gragg70.234.170.149 (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (I hope I finally learned to sign out correctly?)70.234.170.149 (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)