User talk:JBW

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and let me know, by pinging me there, or if you prefer by dropping a note on this page. (I make scarcely any 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 ping you to let you know.
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.

Regarding OccultZone

I see that you have good standing with OccultZone, so I hope you can counsel him on this a little. If you noticed, most of the links Swarm had pointed out were in response to my edits. The only thing that allowed me to survive the wave block was that I saw the situation escalating and chose to stay out of there for a while especially after other new editors got into the fracas. And chose absurdly bad timing (my timezone, my bad) to return and re-instate what I felt was still being discussed on talk, shortly after he was blocked (which I didn't know - I was still telling him this was going nowhere and we should move it to another forum - which someone else already did - which I again didn't realise).

The problem is, he thinks that I was socking as those new editors who were arguing with him just before he got blocked. You're right in saying its across different topics. Instead, the common denominator in the big picture is what he perceives as him protecting that page against me and my alleged scary army of socks. He thinks he is warring with me. Ergo, I was the cause of his grief, so he's now throwing anything/everything at me hoping something sticks. Either that or he thinks the socks could be my retired brother. I'm very transparent on all these. Also, if you are able to, could you tell me how Checkuser can be expedited so that he and I can get this sock nonsense out of the way? Or should I make a specific request at one of the Wikitalk pages?

Thanks in advance and Best Regards. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhanzhao: I understand what you mean, but it is not obvious to me at a glance where all the rights and wrongs lie. It may well be that you both of you are due for some criticism; I'm not sure. To study the history of the case in enough depth to be able to come to a clear conclusion would take me quite a lot of time and effort, and I am unwilling to get that much involved. I posted a message to OccultZone in response to a request for a review of a block for edit warring, and I restricted myself to looking into the case enough to satisfy myself that the editing involved could not reasonably be regarded as edit-warring, and stopped there. Another quick look at the history does make it seem that OccultZone may be specifically targeting your edits, Zhanzhao, but whether justifiably or unjustifiably I can't say. To be honest, this is the sort of dispute that I really hate getting involved in, which is the main reason why I never patrol Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and go there only if there is some specific case there that touches on something I am dealing with or involved in. I understand that you must find the situation frustrating, but I'm afraid I am going to give your request for help a miss. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Checkuser was already run its course and already vindicated me as expected, though OccultZone is still continuing attempt to draw some form of linkage to my so called alleged socks - even though I pointed out that "evidence" of common behavior/same wordings used that he was pointing out was so weak that I could even point out instances of him using the very same type of phrasing. I used people I was sure he knew for some of the examples, so unfortunately I actually used one of your old edits to prove a point.

OccultZone: *"to make it clear"[1][2], [3]

Me: Is he a sock too?

No offense was intended, in fact 3 of the other examples I used were actually Jimbo Wales' old edits, so you're in esteemed company. I just thought you could counsel him earlier on, but the way I see it, he's like a train-wreck in slow-motion that doesn't want to stop, so I'll just see how this plays out. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Gordon, MLT & Audiation

Hi James,

I'm unversed in wikipedia procedures, policies, or even user/editing 'ethics' so I pray I'm addressing the following properly:

Respectfully, as an educator who has read his research, implemented methods logically arising from it, and seen reliable, predictable, robust, and measure-able results among all my music students, I can only say his name and the word "audiation" (which he did not coin) deserve a place within wikipedia.

Please do let me know if I can assist in any way to help provide the necessary criteria to have Dr. Gordon and Audiation restored to Wikipedia-acceptable status.

Kind regards,

Ron Malanga Music Teacher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.71.83 (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, my name is John Ritchie, and my wife is a music teacher who has studied Gordon's methods. While there is controversy in the world of Music Education as to the efficacy of all his ideas, he is nonetheless a remarkably important figure in the field today and absolutely did not deserve to have his page, ideas, and any reference to him expunged from the Wikipedia. Certainly the articles could be better written and and less promotional in nature, but that doesn't mean the ideas don't have a place here. It seems like a heavy-handed attempt to silence rather than encourage a conversation and it's most confusing. 75.73.18.240 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC) John Ritchie[reply]

The best move you can make is to either a) create an article in your user space (which would involve you registering an account so you had user space) and work on it over time and/or b) utilize Wikipedia:Articles for creation to help guide you through the process of article creation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Edwin Gordon and Gordon Music Learning Theory were deleted because they were copyright infringements. It was not a "heavy-handed attempt to silence": it was simply a matter of complying with the law. That does not mean that Edwin Gordon is not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article: it simply means that copying and pasting text from other web sites is not the way to write the article, and you are perfectly welcome to write a new article about him, in your own words. As for Audiation, the issue there is that there is no evidence of substantial coverage of the concept by reliable sources other than those written by, or associated with, Edwin Gordon. I am sure you know more about the subject than I do, so you may well be able to provide sources which cover the subject; if so, then please do so. Wikipedia:Notability should give you an idea as to what sort of evidence is needed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Your rationale for deletion makes sense, and while I don't know enough about the subject to produce a proper Wikipedia page, I'm sure someone else that is reading this does and can do so without lifting text completely from another source. It seems to me that if/when Gordon's page is reproduced, Audiation would fit perfectly as a sub-heading on it rather than on its own page, at least until further independent coverage on the topic is produced. 75.73.18.240 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC) John Ritchie[reply]

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

Leeds on 12th April 2015
Manchester on 26th April 2015
Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive user

Abusive user is back: 85.245.82.32 (talk · contribs), 85.245.78.188 (talk · contribs) and 85.247.75.208 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SLBedit: I see that Diannaa has blocked two of the IP addresses, and semi-protected various affected articles for a short time. I would consider protecting them for a longer time; if the trouble continues, feel free to let me know. I have also blocked the one of the IP addresses you mention that Diannaa didn't block, though I think blocks will be of little value, as the editor just moves to another IP address. Article protection is likely to be more effective, but even that is of limited use, as there are so many other articles the editor can move to. I'm afraid it's just a question of reverting edits, and blocking and protecting as and when the editor is seen to be in action, and hoping to limit the damage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion continues: 81.193.7.134 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SLBedit: I've semi-protected many of the recently edited pages for varying lengths of time. However, there has been disruptive editing from this editor since at least as far back as 2013, and some of the articles have been protected long ago, only to have the same editor returning much later, so the likelihood of persuading him or her to stop is pretty remote. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas_Mensah

--Oralofori (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Created this page and need your help giving it a second look, thanks: Thomas_Mensah[reply]

I'll try to find time to look at it tomorrow, but right now I don't have time, I'm afraid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion and Reinstatement of Telfaz11

I believe in good faith that the references cited for the article about Telfaz11 are neither unreliable nor do the several reliable citations count as bombardment, and would like to ask you to kindly reconsider undeletion of the article for Telfaz11 and reinstating it, as it does NOT meet any criteria for deletion; many clear and focused articles have been cited from very reliable sources such as The Washington Post, Toronto Star, and BBC News. Looking forward to your response. Postdepartum (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]