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.) (I make only limited use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise 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 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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Mark H. Moore

Hello, I challenged your PROD on Mark H. Moore - this person may have some notability and would be better discussed at AfD.

WorldTraveller101

Hi James. I was wondering if you were aware WorldTraveller's page is currently fully protected? The idea was that people would stop contacting him, so that he would stop editing here. Worm^TT(talk) 12:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't realise, but with hindsight I should have realised, as the editing area was pink when I edited, but I didn't stop to think about it. Thanks for letting me know. Anyway, I will leave my message there, because it is a useful record for the future. JamesBWatson (talk)

On second thoughts, I have reverted my edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vishwakarma institute of management

james could you please review my page of vishwakarma institute of management and see if that is from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammybackinaction (talk • contribs) 04:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emsisoft Anti-Malware page deleted!

Dear, I am not affiliated by Emsisoft and i am not advertising. I am an Emsisoft Employee, i have to update the Emsisoft Anti-Malware and that's what i am doing. You can see that the initial page was too old. I updated and added more info. Nothing more. Please understand. Best Regards, Aldi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldi Duzha - Emsisoft (talk • contribs) 11:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Aldi, in case you do come back, take a look at this page and you'll start to get it hopefully. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edijs Joksts

Please restore this article (Edijs Joksts) at my user page. Thanks --Dark Eagle (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mere stub, with almost no content, but it's now at User:Dark Eagle/Edijs Joksts. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, now you can delete this..) --Dark Eagle (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Taoism74

left you a message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taoism74 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a message on my talk page. I am done with the charmed page but I do want to address a situation with you concerning 114.77.238.179 who posted this on my talk page "Now stop changing the theme song or I will report you to Wikipedia admins and have you blocked". I take this as a threat. if 114.77.238.179 leaves me alone I will leave this person alone hope this matter can be resovled and no one is blocked

Thanks Taoism74 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taoism74 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you are "done with" with article, but in fact you have been continuing your edit war there, without logging in, via a proxy, so you have been blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed article

What is the problem with Apitron Pdf rasterizer article? what does it mean - very close paraphrase? What should be changed? H4242 (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H4242 (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you were posting this message, I was writing a message on your talk page, which may perhaps go some way towards answering this query. You may also find Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explaing then what is the difference between this article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitro_PDF H4242 (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say anything else, let me caution you against assuming that because an article exists on Wikipedia, it must satisfy Wikipedia's standards. Thousands of unsuitable articles are created, and while most of them are deleted pretty quickly, some of them escape unnoticed for a long time. You may find it helpful to read WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Having said that, I have looked at the article you mention. It is very poor, and contains no evidence at all of notability. However, such evidence does exist, although nobody has added it to the article. The article was nominated for deletion a few months ago, but in the course of discussion of that nomination numerous sources were provided, and goodness knows why one or more of the people involved in the discussion didn't take the trouble to add them to the article. Even without looking at that discussion, in a few seconds' worth of Google search I found links to sources that looked at a glance as though they would probably establish notability, whereas a much longer time searching for your product failed to produce anything that looked even remotely likely. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War Warning

Hi there. I was removing vandalism that the offender kept on adding. This stopped ages ago and I requested banning of the user. Doyley Talk 10:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it vandalism? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ruturaj Prajapati

I don't understand why you deleted this userpage under G11. The page had little if any promotional content. Perhaps the page should have been deleted as a fake article, but that is an issue for MFD not speedy deletion.

I also don't understand why you indef blocked the user as an advertizing-only account. The user had made a useful edit to one article and tried to make a useful edit (coding a TOC by hand) to another. Perhaps the user should be given a short block for removing speedy tags. (But considering the bitey treatment he received from Harry the Dirty Dog, even that might be excused.) I think this is a potentially useful editor. —teb728 t c 11:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he received "bitey" treatment. It was clear from the outset that he and the other account in his father's name were here primarily if not solely to promote themselves as non-notable people. I was very patient with User:Ruturaj Prajapati and was content for the user page to remain as long as it had a "User page" tag on it (which I did not add it should be noted). It was made quite clear to him that if he persisted in removing that tag the page would be nominated for deletion, since clearly he was trying to make it look like he had a Wikipedia article. He did persist in removing it and the page was nominated. It's as simple as that. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user page served no purpose that I can see other than self-promotion.
Out of a total 189 edits, it is possible to find a couple that are not attempts at self-promotion. I don't feel that substantially detracts from the "promotion only" nature of the account. Nevertheless, I have thought carefully about what you have said, and I will reduce the block length and change the block message. We will then see whether the user then edits differently or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James, that sounds like a good compromise. When he is unblocked I will keep a watching brief but I will refrain from intervening on the assumption that others will act if there is any further promotional activity. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion

Isn't this just an opinion [1]? And if so... perhaps you could explain that to user Matze-bepy123 [2].-68.75.18.106 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completing the square

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Quietbritishjim's talk page.
Message added 15:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You blocked the wrong editor

Please review User:Lugia2453 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. Thanks anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure that it was my mistake. It seems that it may have been a software bug that caused the block to land on the wrong account. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another elevator

See User:John of Reading/CSD log#July 2013 - do you still want me to tell you about these? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you. Telling me each time probably has the small advantage of reducing the average time a vandalism page remains in existence, because if I am online I may delete the page quicker than would happen if it has to wait in the speedy deletion list for an admin to find it. Also, since I know the history, I don't need to spend time looking into it, so it saves some other admin a bit of time. Other than that, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference. Whenever you report this to me I always check ranges of IP addresses, and place short-term range blocks if there are no recent constructive edits in the range involved. That may possibly slightly reduce the frequency of the vandalism, but I don't suppose it achieves much, against a vandal who keeps coming back at fairly long intervals. So, feel welcome to keep telling me if you like, and I will do what I can, but if you don't feel like bothering then it wan't be a big deal. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the page previously known as Masterclock

This page was deleted on the premise it was a shameless attempt at advertisement or shilling.. I would argue, this is a company listing, same as Symmetricom, BEA, IBM, Infravio, etc; see pages referencing masterclock such as SMPTE please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacon76 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". There was no suggestion that it was "shameless": that is your choice of word.
I honestly have no knowledge at all of the word "shilling" except as an obsolete unit of money once used in various countries, but in the context it is clear that is not what you mean. I looked the word "shill" up in Wiktionary, and found that there are several meanings, the only one that looks relevant being "To promote or endorse in return for payment, especially dishonestly". I have no reason at all to suppose that the promotion was done dishonestly, and I have never made any suggestion one way or the other as to whether it was done for payment, only that it was promotion. It certainly read as promotion to FreeRangeFrog, who nominated the article for deletion, and when I reviewed the nomination I agreed.
At a quick glance through the article IBM I failed to notice any of the marketing-speak that was present in Masterclock, but if you have seen any that I have missed please remove it. I have not checked the other articles you mention.
Over the years in which I have been involved with Wikipedia, I have found that the only people who refer to Wikipedia articles as "listings", like those who call them "profiles" or "presences", are people who come here with the purpose of using Wikipedia to publicise their company or other organisation. Nobody else ever uses any of those words to refer to an article.
Seeing this message from you has prompted me to review the rest of your edits. I have found that twice you have added links to a website associated with the company you have promoted, in both cases in articles where they have only marginal relevance. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James and thank you for he prompt reply. I did not mean to sound aggressive in my last note, but I see where it may have been interpreted that way and apologize if I did so. Bacon 22:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Bacon76

Blocked proxies

Hi. An IP left this message on my Wikivoyage account (because it is blocked here). I'm not a technical guy and some of these accounts are blocked as proxies while others as socks so could you take a look and see if there is some merit in this? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 20:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented about this at WP:ANI#Uninvolved_review_requested. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we use to have a bot that took care of the proxy IPs? What happened to that? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

301man

Hello JamesBWatson :

There's no COI between me and Epiphany Eyewear. You have followed my editing and accused me of things in the past. So, please respond on my talk page and the article's talk page with valid, reliable and specific evidence regarding your current assumptions and accusations.

Also, please read Talk page title "May 2013" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:301man#May_2013) as documentation of any history with the subject. There's nothing covert. Everything I've done has been documented openly online.

According to information I found in Help, when a COI tag is placed, the person placing the tag also is obligated to include an explanation for placing the tag. I have not seen any explanation for the tag. The Help section also advises editors to remove tags if they believe they are wrongly placed or after the article is edited. The article was edited, cleaned up, and unnecessary content removed prior to its creation. In its present state, it is written using a NPOV sticking strictly to facts found in notable cites and references.

Looking forward to hearing from you so we can get the tag removed.

Thank you. 301man (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of ever having "accused" you of anything, but if I have please remind me when and where. As for the conflict of interest, apart form your editing predominantly on one person and his business, and sometimes doing so in a rather promotional way, there is the fact that you have stated that you have been given photographs by him, with permission to use them on Wikipedia, which suggests that you have some connection with the person you have been writing about.

You say "There's nothing covert. Everything I've done has been documented openly online." I am not sure why you think it necessary to state that, since to the best of my knowledge nobody has suggested that anything you have done is "covert". However, since you have chosen to raise that issue, let me point out that the accounts you have given have contradicted one another. For example, you claimed that the subject of some photographs gave the photographs to you, but at a different time you claimed to have taken the photographs yourself. You claimed to have come across mention of the person you have been writing about while doing "research" for other contributions to Wikipedia, and found it interesting, so that you checked further and wrote about him. However, at a different time you claimed that your first knowledge of him came from having met him. I don't know who you are, where you are, or what the extent of the connection you have with the subjects you have written about, but I do know that there is enough to give a clear impression that you may well have a close connection with them, and you yourself have stated that you have met the person in question a number of times. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Parting gift

Please restore into my user space. - Altenmann >t 01:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think why, since the page contains no significant content, and you didn't touch it in the two and a half years it spent in the article incubator waiting to be improved, but I have done it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baker & McKenzie

I see you tagged this as advertorial. I agree (it's been almost entirely created by firm members). I copyedited the lede and the History section, but I'm more at a loss as to what to do with the rest of the article. Perhaps you could use a judicious hand and trim, consolidate, or gut/cite/date some of the other sections/items. (I have this article on my Watch list because in the past they have tried to expunge or bury mention of Geoffrey Bowers.) Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP Spamming

Thanks, i've added most of the articles to my watch list and see how it goes. Ward20 (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angels Den

Dear James B Watson,

I recently uploaded a page entitled "Angels Den".

It got deleted for the reason " advertisement'.

I am not related to Angels Den, I am however passionated by the industry. Knowing of the wikipedia rules, I followed to the letter the model of companies of the same industry that happen to have a page on wikipedia.

I may thus ask why makes you that it is for advertisement purposes? I was really cautious to adopt a sober tone as well as backing up every single one of my sources.

Sincerely,

Rhâmusker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhamusker (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, language such as "Angels Den connects business owners looking for funding with Business Angels who are high-net-worth individuals" reads like marketing copy. However, looking back at the article, I don't see it as really blatant spam, so I have restored it, to give you a chance to work on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me a chance, I will ameliorate it.

Ecstatic love for Krishna

Can you please explain more detailed why the page Ecstatic love for Krishna was deleted. The reason for deletion was provided as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The article listed the features of Ecstatic love for Krishna which are described in ISKCON holy scriptures. Why this article was ascribed as advertising or promotion? What needs to be fixed in this article? Omnidexterous (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article read as an attempt to promote the view of an organisation called "International Society for Krishna Consciousness". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]