User talk:JBW/Open

This page is used as a temporary alternative to my main talk page, when that page is protected due to vandalism. If you have any constructive messages or questions, please post them below. Any posts which I judge to be unconstructive will simply be removed without comment. When a section has not been edited for a while I will move it to my main talk page, and after a while it will then be automatically moved to the archive of that page. At present, I have done this for posts which have not been edited since 12 July 2016 or earlier.

EventQL

Hey James. I added a comment to the EventQL talk page. Could you please consider it? many thanks! ~paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnord555 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect Solar power.

I think protection of Solar power is not needed nowdays.165.132.24.162 (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've lifted the protection. Let's hope it's more successful than the last time protection was lifted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Vinding Sportsforening (english version)

Hey JamesBWatson I'm fairly new in this game of editing wiki pages/writing them so i'm not familar with how this works :) so please bare with me. I can undertand that you have requested for my English version of "Vinding Sportsforening" to be deleted. The version which you have requested to be deleted was not the final version, I have taken a screenshot of the final version, which I will link in this message. Now to the reason for creating a english version. Denmark has like many other countries seen a mass immigration of foreigners lately. Many of them do not understand danish for good reasons. I therefore thought it would be a service to them, to translate the page, and make it easier for them to join the local football club. I would gladly elaborate on the aforementioned if needed. Best Regards Lucas - Denmark — Preceding unsigned comment added by LLiedecke (talk • contribs) 13:10, 23 July 2016‎

@LLiedecke: Everything that I could see suggested that this is a perfectly ordinary suburban sports club. We don't have articles on just anything: we require the subject of an article to be significant and notable. I suggest that it may help to look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations to see what sort of thing is needed for an article about an organisation such as a club. That page also has links to various guidelines and policies, such as the guidelines on notability, which you may read if you wish to see more relevant information. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus! keeps vandalizing the Sino-Vietnamese War page.

Admin.

Spartacus! keeps vandalizing the Sino-Vietnamese War page. He just broke the 3 revert rule.

I have refuted him in the talk section but he just does not get it! He provided a economy article with a 1 page blurry picture to support his claims. I have added solely war dedicated article, yet he keeps on trolling and vandalizing them.

Please block him and protect the page.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see a dispute over content of the article, but I don't see any sign of vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request for Mr. Raffy Tulfo

Sir, I would like to ask how can I edit Mr. Tulfo's page without being deleted? Yes, as per what I said before, I'm working for Mr. Tulfo and I didn't intentionally edit it just to be bias to my employer but he wrote that article himself. How can I post it in his page without violating your COI rule? Is there any possible way to make it better without affecting the article that Mr. Tulfo wants to put in his own page? Our main goal is just to improve and update his page so that people will be able to read and discover his new shows and achievements - in one click - as well as his deeds as a public servant, since the one in the current article is outdated. Your immediate response is a big help for I am fairly new to this kind of editing. Thank you so much for your kind consideration. Rwprod (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block Evaiding Editor

A lot of this person's edits that you reverted back, some of the ones prior had a lot of incorrect details and spellings. An example of something incorrect was "Non is preserved" when the block evador knew it's "Non ARE Preserved" basically the block editor found errors and your undoing this persons edits is putting said errors back. I'm NOT him or her, but I agree with him or her. He or She isn't trying to get into an edit war, their only trying to fix real errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourlaxers (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourlaxers: A lesson on English grammar from someone who can't spell "none", "evader", or "evading", who doesn't know the difference between "their" and "they're", and who thinks that "none is preserved" is grammatically incorrect! Wow! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I goofed in some spelling and stuff, but that's what this person was trying to fix. He or she really was looking for typos and errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourlaxers (talk • contribs) 14:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourlaxers: I suppose it's my fault for trying to be funny, rather than just stating what I wanted to say in straightforward terms, but you have missed my point. My real point was contained in the remark who thinks that "none is preserved" is grammatically incorrect. In traditional English grammar, plural is used only when there is more than one thing involved, and singular when there isn't. Thus "none" (which is "one" with a negative prefix) does not indicate more than one thing, and it is therefore traditionally singular. When I was a schoolboy, "none are" was in fairly common colloquial use, particularly among uneducated people, but it was regarded as incorrect, and generally not found in published writing. Since then, "none are" has increased in use, and also grammatical prescriptivism has gone out of fashion, and those two facts have resulted in "none are" becoming generally regarded as an acceptable alternative to the more traditional "none is". It is very likely that in another generation from now "none is" will be obsolete, and "none are" the only acceptable form, but we aren't there yet. Personally, I don't have a strong preference for one or the other. Someone who says "Granted that both 'none is' and 'none are' are both accepted usages, I prefer 'none are', as it is now more common in colloquial English" would be expressing a perfectly reasonable point of view, but someone who simply says "Writing 'none are', is obviously an error" is simply mistaken.

More important than all that, though, is the fact that the reverting I did was nothing to do with the quality of the particular edits, it was part of an attempt to dissuade an editor with a very long history of disruptive editing from evading blocks. The editor in question certainly a history of trying to correct what he or she thinks are errors, as you say, but in many cases he or she is absolutely wrong in his or her assessment of what are errors, and there are other cases which are perhaps debatable, in which case Wikipedia works by consensus, but this editor ignores consensus and deliberately and knowingly makes edits which are contrary to clear consensus among other editors, because he or she arrogantly thinks he knows better than anyone else. He or she is persistent, and there is no simple way of stopping him or her, but experience shows that in cases like this, if the disruptive editor finds that everything he or she does is reverted, there is a chance that his or her rate of disruption may reduce. I do not choose to spend the amount of time it would take to individually check each edit the block-evading disruptive editor does to see how good it is, which would mean taking time away from other work, and in any case I am not sure it would in the long run be helpful to do so anyway, as the whole point is for him/her to find that everything he/she does is reverted. Hence, I do a mass rollback of any outstanding edit he/she has done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this block Evader tries to find real errors in articles, like missing punctuations, misspellings, lack of spaces (Example they see "bigchair" and change it to "big chiar") and other incorrect stuff. Apperently this person doesn't think or see Him or Herself as better than anyone else, they were only trying to fix real errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourlaxers (talk • contribs) 21:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran the great

Are you sure about Kamran the great. Indefinite block seems a bit harsh.

31.218.161.96 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has been doing substantially the same sort of thing for over six years. He was blocked for it five years ago, and unblocked on the basis of a promise to change. He can ask to be unblocked again, if he wants, and see whether he can persuade an administrator that this time he really will change. If he can do that, then the block can be lifted. If not, I don't see any reason to let the block automatically expire, which in view of his past history will virtually certainly mean that he will return to the same disruptive editing as before. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skanderbeg page

Hi,

I wish to report abuse on the page of Skanderbeg, which is the National Hero of Albania, (widely acknowledged as Albanian medieval hero by historians, writers, various governments and cities erecting statues and other acknowledgments), by serbian users who abusively try to claim a slavic origin for him and his people, by diminishing his legacy or putting claims of the war between Skanderbeg and Ottomans not as a war between Albanians and Turks, but between Albanian themselves and other similar nonsense, which are contradictory even within the Wikipedia article itself. I tried to erase such sections, but was instead accused of putting an edit war. I understand that the edit should have some rules, however such claims over renowned figures and facts (such as Albanian identity of Skanderbeg and its cause, acknowledged by the whole Europe on its time and later centuries) threatened by some anonymous ethnicist users, should be restricted by Wikipedia.

We are also talking about Albanian national Hero (not some regular historic figure) and anti-Albanians should not be involved in harming it.

For further references, please refer to the changes I have made to the page. Hoping in your understanding and assistance, Thank you Marsel KonomiMARSELIMADHE (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]