Jump to content

User talk:JBW

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by قاسم منصور (talk | contribs) at 12:39, 18 January 2013 (→‎A heads up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


User talk
  • If I left you a message 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.) (I usually don't use watchlisting, because I have found I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.)
  • 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.

Reply

Sosthenes12 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Request for the closure of FFD

Hello! sir, how are you? My request is please have a look at the following FFD pages : FFD December 19, 2012, FFD December 19, 2012 Remained image 1, FFD December 19, 2012 Remained image 2, FFD December 19, 2012 Remained image 3. If you think these images have to be deleted please delete them and close the discussion sir or if you want to comment to keep those images, please let me know by replying there in FFD or in my talk page or here. Thank you for reading this. Have a good day. Raghusri (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply for the above sir. Thank you. Raghusri (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, there is no obvious consensus in any of these. However, in at least some of the discussions there are suggestions that you have misunderstood or misapplied policies or guidelines. If that is true, then your statements should be disregarded, leaving consensus against you. I don't care about these images enough to be willing to spend the time and trouble it would take to check whether it is true or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are showing your aggression on me??? Be cool, i just requested you. Doing (or) not doing is your choice according to Wiki policies and guidelines etc... etc... . Because you are a admin know!!! I didn't mean that you have to follow my commands. Raghusri (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really did not intend to be aggressive. Also, rereading what I wrote, I don't see the aggression, but if I misjudged the tone of my reply then I apologise. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem sir. I understood about (Regarding aggression issue) matter. But my humble request is : Please see that FFD once when you are free sir, because i don't want to irritate you repeatedly with my requests. That's not my intention. Happy editing sir. Raghusri (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking Deletion of a Page Rahul Easwar

Added a lot of substantiation to pages of Rahul Easwar, unfortunate that no replies was there to talk page and was deleted. (Alex.mathews (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Mostly YouTube, minor mentions, promotional pages not independent of the subject. Very little in the way of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The sources cited did not come near establishing notability by Wikipedia's standards, though they certainly did an excellent job of showing that there is a very active campaign to try to publicise Rahul Easwar's work. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to humbly convey Sir, There was enough references in India's leading media houses Cnn-Ibn, Times Now, Ndtv, The Hindu etc. I am sad that there is a tinge of cynicism from such a senior wikipedian. Would like to discuss & also take advise from you how to revoke deletion, pls (Alex.mathews (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I hope you would humbly give the opportunity to present counter arguments, Thank you (Alex.mathews (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I have to go off line now, but I will try to remember tomorrow to check the sources you gave again, and tell you what I make of them. (Incidentally, I have no idea what makes you refer to "cynicism": as far as I know I was simply giving a brief and dispassionate summary of how the cited sources related to Wikipedia guidelines.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that response, Sir. I really value it as a very junior wikipedian. Sorry, if any wrong usage came, Was a bit surprised as i was putting some of the more credible Links to News Channels in our Nation, India. Pls check this when your time permits 5 Best Credible Links.

1. Times Now Video Page - Rahul Easwar - http://www.youtube.com/user/timesnowonline/videos?query=rahul+easwar (Please Note : This is Official Times Now Page, not individual page)

2. Cnn-Ibn describes him as Auhtor & Researcher - http://ibnlive.in.com/chat/rahul-easwar/the-legacy-of-sathya-sai-baba/631.html (Official Cnn Ibn page - www.ibnlive.com)

3. Ndtv - http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/sabarimala-stampede-frantic-search-on-for-missing-children/187806 (Direct from NDTV News Website)

4. Economic Times Article - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/features/special-report/leadership-role-and-spirituality-in-corporate-realm/articleshow/7434202.cms?prtpage=1

5. The Hindu write up - http://www.hindu.com/mp/2006/02/18/stories/2006021802420100.htm

Just a Word to add, Sabarimala is 1 of the Largest Pilgrimages in World with more than millions of devotees visiting. Mentions in BBC, MSNBC, Forbes Traveller etc. - (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30072128/ns/travel-destination_travel/t/worlds-most-visited-religious-destinations/)

would request humbly to re evaluate your position, Sir..Thanks (Alex.mathews (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I see that, rather than wait for me to get back here, as I said I would try to do, you have gone ahead with creating a deletion review. See my response there. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Admin,

I created a page for mr. rahul easwar today on wikipedia. Mr. Easwar is an author and activist of well repute in our country.

I am a very late wikipedian and dont know the reasons of the page being deleted. The reason cited was suspected promotion. The links i had provided were all accurate. I can provide you with even more links, that will again prove that Mr. Easwar is a person identifiable as a notable personality by even wikipedia standards, as detailed in the website. i avoided all those links for brevity.

Mr Easwar is the spokesperson for Sabarimala, which is the largest pilgrimage in the world (ref from wikipedia itself), and this can be substantiated by links from national media (mentioned below) in India and also from the wiki page of the family of the supreme preist of sabarimala.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/death-toll-crosses-100-in-sabarimala-stampede/140520-3.html

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/article1118935.ece

http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&eid=31&pid=2724

Tantri_controversy


Now, the presence of Mr. Easwar in the national media can be substantiated with any number of references, as he is a panelist for Social/Political discussions in the national media, in channels NDTV, Times Now,CNN-IBN, Aaj Tak, 9XM, and other channels.

Please let me know what else i should provide for the page to be re-instated.

Carolchriskevin (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Kevin SunnyCarolchriskevin (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are clearly trying to use Wikipedia to promote a cause, you should not try to write an article on the subject. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion, and people who persist in trying to use it as such after that fact has been explained to them are liable to be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Admin,

I am a great admirer of Indian Culture and Spirituality. It was during my research about the same that I learned about Sabarimala Temple. From wikipedia itself I learned that Sabarimala is the largest pilgrimage in the world. I also learned that Mr. Easwar is the spokesperson for Sabarimala. He is also a person really trying to promote my culture and heritage. I did further research on him, read two of his books. All the info I have provided in the article were collected by me during my research. It was this inspiration that made me write a wikipedia page on Mr. Easwar. I was only of the intention that such a noteworthy person should be recognised. I have no intention of promoting Mr. Easwar. My only inspiration is the culture and heritage of my country. I strongly felt that Mr. Easwar's works are notable in this regard, and hence wrote this page.

Please take this into consideration.

Carolchriskevin (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Kevin[reply]

You say that you "have no intention of promoting" him, and yet you also say "I was only of the intention that such a noteworthy person should be recognised". Writing so that someone you have a high regard for "should be recognised" means that you were writing to promote him. That is what "promotion" means. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin,

by saying should be recognised, i meant that he should have his due on wikipedia. He has enough recognition in the physical world. I was actually perplexed that he didn't have a wiki page. Because there are a lot of pages in wikipedia, where people of a lower notability are recognised. I felt that this is unfair to him :(

Carolchriskevin (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Kevin[reply]

Dear Admin,

This is unfair to the part of people who want to edit & also put facts & News reports & events, person in Wikipedia. Even thou wikipedia suggests of not comparing, let me point out 3 pages who dont even hav 1/5 of references & notability,

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnykutty_abraham

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_V_Nikesh_Kumar (i, myself was adding reference to this page, because it was lacking

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_V_Raman_Pillai (another page, i was trying hard to find reference in Internet, (although he is a great literary figure in our land)

I hope a Senior Administrator will be magnanimous enough to allow adding to the repository of knowledge

(& as a New Wikipedian, i was adding to Deletion review. Pls dont take offence of tat. Thank you) (Alex.mathews (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I know nothing of the other articles you link to. If, as you seem to be suggesting, they do not have adequate sources, then maybe you would like to propose deletion. As for being "unfair to the part of people who want to edit & also put facts & News reports & events, person in Wikipedia", Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are to do with reliable sources showing notability, not to do with being "fair" to people who wish to use Wikipedia to publicise something. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JamesBWatson, I have apologised to you the deletion review log, I was not aware that my behaviour would be considered improper, if i put in deletion review, as i was waiting for your response.

But what u suggest seems to belittle Indian Media itself, Our National Media has given space to a person extensively & they have channels of international affiliations like CNN & Times. & Yet you think, Iam trying to for publicising. That is unfair. You should definitely delete things which are not of inline citations, but having an attitude of not giving space from things from our place is unfortunate.

I have gone thru deletion reviews, & there was a "Clever Campaign of deleting the page, in which 1 put the suggestion, another seconded it in a short time, & third deleted it. Is that kind of behaviour acceptable.

And "Notability" ?? If a person is noted in our Land's Media (India) in such a magnitude, it is belittling our media & our mind, to say that that is not notable enough. Hope you would respond. Thanks (Alex.mathews (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I have spent some time trying to clarify things for you. However, if you think that I was part of a "clever campaign" to delete the article, then I have evidently failed to get through to you. If you are going to assume bad faith in what I do and say, then there is probably little point in my trying any further. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, It is so unfortunate that iam not able to communicate my points to you. I never said, YOU are a part of campaign. Why would a senior wikipedian like you do that. You would never. I was pointing that there were some people who did that who belonged to our land. You have conveyed your points across to me well, and i have learned that. It was a learning experience. But please dont misunderstand, With High Regards. (Alex.mathews (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Admin,

I understand your concern and your passion to keep the sanctity of Wikipedia! But, i feel i am unable to convince you about the situation. There seems to be a serious communication problem between us. Mr. Easwar as such requires no promotion. Last day I was trying to get an appointment with Mr. Easwar when his secretary informed me that he's been invited to the US by US universities in connection with the celebration of 150 years of Swami Vivekananda. H will be addressing the crowd in 14 US Universities.

Now, i can cite a hundred examples of Wikipedia pages for people with lower recognition. A simple Google search on Rahul Easwar would tell you the magnitude of notability for the activism of Mr. Easwar. If you persist to stand by your stubbornness, then I have nothing more to say. Yet, it should be noted that you convey a message of belittling our nation and its media, as Mr. Mathews Suggested. Please make an arrangement so that we can constructively discuss our differences of perspective.

If i have made an errors, kindly bear with me for my lack of experience about wikipedian customs.

With Highest Regards, Kevin

122.174.201.176 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Kevin[reply]

Would request for re instating the page of rahul eswar as i hav raised in appeal page (208.7.38.227 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Have written on the appeal page, hope that is ok. Please do give attention when your time permits (Alex.mathews ([[User talk:Alex.mathews|talk]]) 23:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your time and attention. It was a learning experience, and I feel because of my interaction with you and page, I have learned a lot in a shorter time. Shall I add more references as the important interviews about him and prominent media coverage was not given as reference . Pls do check when your time permits(Alex.mathews (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

tb

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 64.134.225.194's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 64.134.225.194's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Answered there. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Natataek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, one last reply from me to see if you have the time!

Reply

Hi James, I got your note. Can you tell me on which page I edited the English incorrectly? Please answer on my user page. Thanks! 70.165.46.157 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Replied at User talk:Sosthenes12. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Junkyard69

Hi,
regarding user:Junkyard69 and User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 50#User:Junkyard69, I granted the open unblock request per my comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Junkyard69/Archive. I don't do a lot of unblocking and I forgot that I should have talked to you first; in this comparatively simple case I believe I understand the reasoning that lead to the block and that there is nothing I missed. If you disagree I'm of course very open to discussion.
I will stay on top of their edits (if there are any, that is).
Cheers, Amalthea 17:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left the account blocked, because it seemed the username issue had been resolved by the creation of a new account, so there was no need to unblock the original account. However, I don't see that your unblocking does any harm, so I have no objections. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk)

Harry Dunn

Did you see Talk:Harry Dunn? Also, discussion was had with the AFD-closing admin (although the reasons given on the Talk page should have sufficed to avoid the incorrect speedy). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw both, and I thought very carefully about them before deleting. However, I'm afraid I don't agree that it was "incorrect". In any sort of borderline case, where an administrator has made a judgement as to consensus, it is reasonable to approach the administrator who made the decision, and suggest reconsidering that decision. However, this was not a borderline case, as there was a perfectly clear and unambiguous consensus at AfD. No administrator, nor even a pair of administrators discussing the matter and acting together, has any more right to overturn an unambiguous consensus than any other editor. I am sure that you acted in 100% good faith, but I believe that you were mistaken in using your admin tools to reverse the outcome of consensus at a community discussion, and deletion review is the correct step if you think there are good reasons for overturning that decision. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was the speedy, which claimed that the re-created article was "substantially identical" to the deleted article. It obviously wasn't, and the difference (the addition of the citations to meet the general notability guideline) was also what kept it from being a simple overturn of the consensus, which was to delete an article that obviously didn't meet the general notability guideline nor the football notability guideline). But I will raise of deletion review of the speedy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for a deletion review of Harry Dunn. Because you closed speedily deleted this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of research institute page

Hello James, I recently created a Plants for Human Health Institute page, which you deleted last Friday for being self-promotional. Also, the account I used for the creation of that page was "PHHI," which as you pointed out was related to an organization, another no-no. I want to apologize for my seeming lack of regard for Wikipedia's policies, I felt that the institute was notable/worthy of a page, but I approached it the wrong way. After re-reading the original content, I'm embarrassed and realize how subjective the content appeared (though that wasn't my intention). To make reparations, I've created a new username consistent with your policies (JMoore501), which will be used to make contributions outside of the page in question. Also, now that I've spent the weekend reading up on what should've been done, would it be possible for you to revert the deletion so I can edit the page for neutrality? I would also seek your review for the page this time. Any feedback would be great.

Thanks so much! JMoore501 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)JMoore501[reply]

I have posted a message about this at User talk:JMoore501. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, James! Your feedback was extremely helpful. I'll work on the new page and let you know when it's ready for your review. JMoore501 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)JMoore501[reply]

A move

Hi you attempted to decipher an RM for me a week or so ago. Much of the move details are currently here Talk:Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation). Problem is the two other most active editors in the conversation seem to be deliberately going against normal guidelines in hopes to get me upset enough again to get into an edit war. In the process of correcting the looks of this DAB i brought in a WP:3O who decided that it should not look as it currently does (and has been reverted to with simple (undo) even replacing sentence-like details for an entry. The problem I have been running into with a particular editor has resulted in a complete mess of several namespaces used for redirects directly as a result of their WP:wikihounding my edits and 'correcting" them on the basis of their misunderstanding a capitalization rule for Dutch names. I have getting this person to stop [[1]] to no avail the other person involved in the revert to incorrect format issued a "final warning" because one time I lost a bit of cool and got rude over their misunderstanding. I have even asked for a MOS to be written even if it is not enforced it would still be enough to hopefully slow the errant "corrections" being made to my edits. My talkpage exhaustively details our encounters. I don't want to go into a shaggy dog story right here but if you you can help, please do. a close look should show that the first time I got banned for edit-warring (not a problem i did it and got blocked) What was a shock to me is suddenly with NO warning such as "you are never to touch that page again" when I made corrections someone decided it was a "war" all over again and blocked me for a week, even though nobody was involved at that point. It is my guess tey depend on this problem being such a tangled bowl of spaghetti it wouldn't be worth it for someone looking into it.

...JGVR (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This post threw a boomerang into the air, resulting in an indefinite block. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative medicine

Hi, An editor at ip 64.134.225.194 has reverted a couple my edits within a few minutes of me making them [2][3] and is making what I think are some pretty dodgy changes to the article. I understand they asked you to take a look at their edits, my edits and the article. I haven't made any other edits in case this would constitute 3RR but I think this leaves the article in a poor state. Do I have any options other than hoping some other editors will try to improve the relevant sections ? Would be grateful for your advice. Thanks Aspheric (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit you link to is clearly helpful, as it consolidates two copies of the same reference into one. I cannot see any reasonable reason for objecting to it. Also, it certainly wasn't a revert of an edit of yours "within a few minutes". You had made only one edit to the article in the previous hour, and the edit you linked to was not a revert of that. I have not been able to find any earlier edit of yours that it was a revert of, either, so I wonder if you may be mistaken in thinking it was a revert of your editing. The second edit you link to did revert two of your edits, including one made within a couple of minutes. However, that fact is not in itself problematic, and the editor has given explanations of his/her reasons. As for your more general comment about "pretty dodgy changes to the article", it is not clear that you mean anything other than edits with which you disagree. Some of the editor's changes are unambiguously improvements, such as this edit, which removed clearly biased wording which was designed to promote a point of view. Some of the edits, on the other hand, are debatable, but none that I have seen have been unambiguously disruptive. I see two editors, both acting in good faith, both having some reasonable and arguable views to express. I think the best way to deal with the situation is to discuss it, not with a view to showing that you are RIGHT and the other editor is WRONG, but with a view to trying to reach agreement, or at the least an acceptable compromise. It is also essential to accept that, in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia, you will not always get your way, and will sometimes have to accept that a particular article contains content that you think is wrong, and move on to other things. If you want to, you can look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other suggestions, but I am doubtful whether anything suggested there will be more helpful than what I have suggested. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's actually really helpful. I guess it's easy to lose perspective. I do think the article is slow decline ( but I suppose it's possible the ip may think the same). Ah well Aspheric (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk access restored

Just a courtesy note to say I've restored talk access to User talk:Wikiforyou123, following an unblock request at User talk:Wikiforyou789. Looking at the user's history of unblock requests I'm not hopeful of seeing anything useful, but you never know.  An optimist on the run! 12:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: David Meisel

James,

My name is David Meisel and I am trying to delete the wikipedia entry about me. It was created by a friend who was mocking me and is completely inaccurate and ficticious. If you read it you will see it is a joke.

I would like the whole entry deleted please. It undermines the validity of Wikipedia and is embarassing to me.

Could you please delete the page or if not explain how I can do so.

Thanks for your help.

Kind regards,

David Meisel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.250.99.94 (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the page. It was obviously vandalism. If you ever edit Wikipedia again, bear in mind that it's a good idea to give a few words of explanation, so that others can see what you are doing, and not mistake your edits for vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for posting WDCR Radio on WIkipedia

Dear James:

You wrote me an email, today, accusing me of being an "unauthorized" representative for WDCR Radio. As a matter of fact, I am the founder director and President of Westbank and District Community Radio Society, a registered not for profit group with the Province of British Columbia. We are the owners of a community and internet radio station called WDCR. I am general manager of this station. We are based out of West Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, and we are the first radio station in the District of West Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. yours truly, R.J. Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by WDCR-FM (talkcontribs) 12:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not sent you any email, but I did post a message to your Wikipedia talk page. That may be what you mean by an email. Alternatively, you may possibly have your Wikipedia preferences set to automatically inform you by email when anyone posts to your talk page, in which case you will have received an automatic email.
You may like to re-read the message I posted to your talk page. I did not say anything about being "unauthorized", but I did suggest that you might have a conflict of interest, and what you have written above confirms that. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English WP - Reply

Hi there JAMES, AL from Portugal "here",

by your message i guess you mean my conversation with User:Marcospace. I would like to do so (write in English) at ALL times, not my fault that users such as this one have poor skills in the language required, so what are my options besides write in his ("their" thinking of "foreign" users in general) mothertongue? The only thing i'm lacking i guess is that i should provide a message in Portuguese/Spanish/whatever followed by the English translation, i'll work on that.

Don't know if you meant it or implied it, but i'm not writing messages "not-in-English" to avoid scrutiny and/or keep matters private, as i've explained above. Moreover, whenever requested i can provide a translation (if i fail to add one to the "letter"); last but not least, there's always google translator.

All in all, sorry for any inconvenience - --AL (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not for a moment did I intend to suggest that you were trying to avoid scrutiny, and I am sorry if I gave that impression. A Google translation is sometimes useful, but sometimes not much better than nothing. I do understand your point about communicating with others who do not have good English skills. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naw, i know you're in good faith James, i was just trying to make everything clear when i wrote that "scrutiny" bit. Speaking of (lack of) English skills, in retrospect i should not have written "Don't know if you meant it or implied it", but rather "Let there be no confusion", my bad! Obviously you got the impression i was "accusing you of accusing me", sorry mate.

Keep up the good work - --AL (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Nitram Charcoal" page

Good morning, I noticed that the Nitram Charcoal page had been deleted. I was hoping I could get clarification on what portion appeared as promotion and would be happy to alter it. Thank you for your time, Christina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christina119 (talkcontribs) 15:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I can't really specify "what portion appeared as promotion", because it was the general tone and character of the whole article, rather than any specific part of the article. Such language as, for example, "With Gros’s experimentation and innovation, Nitram has developed into the product it is today" reads like marketing copy, rather than like dispassionate third-party reporting.
I advise you to think carefully before you put any time and effort into trying to rewrite the article. If promotion were the only problem, then it would be possible to write a non-promotional version of the article, but if the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines then no matter how the article is written it is likely to be deleted. My investigation suggests, I'm afraid, that the subject probably does not satisfy those guidelines. The vast majority of what I have been able to find about it has been advertising, and the rest has largely been such stuff as posts on forums or blogs. None of this goes anywhere towards establishing notability under Wikipedia's terms. Before considering whether to put more time into rewriting this article, I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Also relevant are Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
Finally, if you are connected to the business you have been writing about, then you have a conflict of interest, and you are not the right person to write about the subject. It can be very difficult, or even impossible, for a person closely involved in a subject to stand back from it and see how their writing will look from the perspective of an outsider, and very often people in such a situation are quite unable to understand why their work keeps getting deleted, as they sincerely cannot see why it looks promotional to everyone else. This problem is particularly severe with people who work in marketing, PR, etc. It seems that they get so used to everything being expressed in promotional terms that they become desensitised to marketing-speak, and often cannot see it when it is staring them in the face. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba p again

Sorry but he seems bent on disruption and has started a thread on WP:ANI, I would be grateful if you could comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of page on John Ertler

I was dismayed to find that the wiki page I was creating for Mr John Ertler has been deleted before I have finished adding material to it.

Can you please send me a copy of the deleted material as I have spent hours collating the material.

I thought I saw somewhere that I had up to 10 days to create the needed references etc. This page was deleted in a matter of just hours despite me indicating on the talk page that I intended to add to the material.

Regards, Tannoy K3838 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannoy K3838 (talkcontribs) 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the history of the article, and it is now at User:Tannoy K3838/John Ertler 2. I have no idea where the ten days figure came from, but an article that satisfies one or more of the speedy deletion criteria can be deleted immediately. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time warp

Apologies. In haste I had forgotten to look at the date. You are correct. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a moment...

... would you mind taking a look at the recent edits of User:76.20.90.53? I ran across it whilst looking into a help request and popped over to their talkpage to advise them about misuse of the {{helpme}} template, but a closer inspection got my duck-detector buzzing... The IP was blocked as a Timmy Polo sock about a year ago, and recent editing seems to show that it's still being used by the same individual - I'm tempted to block on sight, but since you're familiar with the case (or at least have dealt with it before) I wondered if you'd mind having a gander to see if you agree. Cheers, Yunshui  08:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching through the editing history, I had no memory of the case at all, and I thought you might be mistaken in thinking that I "have dealt with it before". However, I see that I posted a message to the IP talk page nearly a year ago, so you are clearly right.
It is immediately obvious that the recent editing has been by the same person who was editing when the previous IP blocks were put in place. It was not so immediately obvious whether it was Timmy Polo, but extensive comparison with the editing of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets left me in no doubt. There are several give-away signs. I have blocked the IP address for a year, and I was tempted to make it longer than that. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grand, thank you for looking into it so quickly. Yunshui  08:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal

Hi, this user would like you to look at their block appeal. Thanks FiachraByrne (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help !!

To User:JamesBWatson I am the User:ImmortanSpartansImmortalSpartans (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC). I am new on Wikipedia and i can edits articles but lacks knowledge about creating new article. I want a create article name "Hanwant Singh Deora" that's why i asked help from User:Hell in a Bucket but as he did not understand Hindi language & he was unable to read and understand references i send to him. Can you tell me about any Wikipedia registered user who can help me in creating this article and who has reading ability of Hindi language.[reply]

You could try asking at Wikipedia:Help desk for someone with a knowledge of Hindi. However, I can find no evidence anywhere that anyone named Hanwant Singh Deora satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. If not, then any effort you put into such an article is likely to be wasted, as the article will probably be deleted. Also, if you are related or otherwise connected to the person, then you have a conflict of interest, and should not be writing an article on the subject. My advice is to forget about creating new articles for now, and instead make small improvements to existing articles. Doing so, you will learn what is acceptable and what isn't, until after a while you will be able to write new articles without fear of their being deleted. (That is, of course, assuming that you are here because you wish to help improve the encyclopaedia. If, on the other hand, you are just here to use Wikipedia as a medium to publish pages about yourself and your family, then you would be better off using a social network site.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletetion

Hi, you recently deleted an article i created on Vygon (UK) Ltd, would you be able to point me in the direction of an editor who could help contribute to the article in my sandbox to bring it inline with WIKI guidelines. Just to notify i'll be rewriting the article within my sandbox so please let me know if this causes any issue.

Thanks

(Murklemark (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Here's a suggestion by a talkpage stalker: if the parent company doesn't have an article, subsidiaries likely won't. The entire company as whole may warrant an article - it could include a small small portion of the contents of the UK subsidiary. Start big. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, but from a local level there is alot of interest in these companies within the area of Wiltshire, so I thought having pages on them would help improve the knowledgebase for local and national interest. (Murklemark (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

A kitten for you!

hello :)


Jesslovesharrypotter (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we tripped over each other; I protected this page for 3 days at the same time you blocked the IP for 3 days. I see User:108.174.174.246 was already blocked and unblocked once today for edit warring, so if in your judgement the block should stay in place, I'll defer to that. Just wanted to make sure you knew about the protection. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I discovered you had protected it just after I blocked the IP. Normally, I would not think there was any point in doing both, but this time I decided to leave the block in place, to convey the message to the IP editor that I meant what I said in my earlier message, when I reduced the length of the previous block. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK by me. I'd like to keep the protection in place too, however, as I'm fairly unimpressed by the edit warring by multiple editors, on both sides of the dispute. See if this will make them use the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up

Hi. While I never have any problems with a neutral administrator reverting or changing some administrative action I performed, I would appreciate a heads up about it. Thanks! Tiptoety talk 05:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have let you know, and I apologise for failing to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

help me

hi dear. pls help me to write Anthropology and Culture thanks. i have many refrence. قاسم منصور (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]