User talk:JBW

This account was previously known as JamesBWatson, but was renamed to JBW on 19 September 2019. James B. Watson is not my real name.

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

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 10 days may be automatically archived by .

PAustin4thApril1980 again

When PAustin4thApril1980 returned from their recent block, they made this edit to Lime Street (TV series) which added the sentence "Auditions were held for the characters of the two young daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret Ann. Because it was seen as likely that Elizabeth, at least, would come of age during the show's projected run, casting directors saw hundreds of twelve and thirteen year old (cisgender) girls for the part" (bolding mine). I don't want to follow PAustin around trying to police their troublesome edits relating to young girls and murdered actresses, so I left it for someone else to fix. Yesterday an IP editor removed the "cisgender" part. for obvious reasons. PAustin reverted them. I am sorry to bring this editor up again here, but they are obviously not going to stop making these kinds of edits. If blocking them didn't work, perhaps a ban from editing articles about women (living or dead) would help? Mo Billings (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

distinguishing "cisgender" teenage girls from "transgender" teenage girls is meant to be respectful to trans children. The fact that they auditioned hundreds of girls for the part of Elizabeth - this info came from the book Heart to Heart with Robert Wagner (1986) by Diana Maychick and L. Avon Borgo. so NOT anything bad. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That book does not specify that the "hundreds of twelve- and thirteen-year-olds tried out for the part" were cisgender or that none of them were transgender. Schazjmd (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

whoever runs the official Samantha Smith site facebook seems to think hundreds auditioned. Samantha was 12 when it started filming in May 1985. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PAustin4thApril1980, the problem isn't the number who auditioned (the book supports "hundreds"). The problem is you labelling them as "cisgender" when you have no idea whether they were or not. In fact, whether they were cisgender or not is not relevant. So why did you add it? Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said, it's to be respectful to trans kids and not treat cis kids as the "default". I was intending to be altruistic. I now realise that I went against WP:NOTADVOCACY. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the patience to explain why this is actually disrespectful to trans people, but imagine if you had written "white" instead of "cisgender" and said that it was to be "respectful" to non-white people. I think it's probably a safe bet that in 1985 all of the actresses who auditioned for the role of a white cisgender teen were white and cisgender, but it is a really, really odd thing to highlight. More importantly, it doesn't come from the source. This is another example of you adding original research which is why you recently blocked. Mo Billings (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Again I apologize for bringing this to you, but PAustin4thApril1980 continues to edit in a way that suggests he is unwilling or unable to edit according to policy. He added unsourced commentary to the biography of a dead actress/singer. (It was reverted by Deeday-UK with an edit summary of "unsourced and rather irrelevant anyway".) Mo Billings (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a statement that is no different to Aldous Huxley and C. S. Lewis's deaths being overshadowed by the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. 9/11 happening so soon after must have had an effect on the impact of Aaliyah's death. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PAustin4thApril1980: What is your source for the statement you added? Mo Billings (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mo Billings: You don't need to apologise for bringing it to me. On the contrary, perhaps I should apologise for not responding to you the last time. I was, in fact, borderline for indef-blocking, but couldn't quite make my mind up. Your bringing yet another example of the problem was pretty well enough to push me past the borderline, and any lingering doubt there might have been would have been removed by PAustin4thApril1980's response to your message, where he used his personal assessment that it "must have had an effect..." as justification for unsourced editing. After all that has been said to him if he can say that then either he is trolling or he really is incapable of understanding the need for sources, so I have gone ahead with an indefinite block. I will not be surprised if that isn't the end of the matter, but we shall see. I find it bewildering how anyone with as much experience of editing Wikipedia can have so little understanding of such a basic principle as that a Wikipedia editor's personal judgement is not a reliable source.

By the way, you don't need to ping an editor on their own talk page, as they get a notification of your message anyway. JBW (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mo Billings (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my thanks as well, JBW. I wrote multiple replies to the "must have had an effect" statement, but I really had difficulty wording it without casting aspersions so I gave up each time. I appreciate your decisive action on the matter. It really is truly baffling behavior from an editor with that much experience. Schazjmd (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Wolf and Cub

IP address 172.250.44.165 is adding a review to the Influence section of the Lone Wolf and Cub page[1], but that doesn't confirm anything since that's just one person's opinion, the people from that show haven't said that.--108.208.137.38 (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a message to the IP talk page. Let me know if you see the problem continuing, and I'll consider whether to follow it up further.

You may like to consider making a Wikipedia account. If I get a message here from an editor using an account I can answer it here and ping the editor, and be fairly confident they'll see my message. If I get a message from an IP address with little history of editing, I can't be sure the editor will ever see my answer, even if I go to the extra trouble of posting here on the IP talk page as well as here. JBW (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message reply

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curious Case

This might just be trolling, but look who has appealed to be unblocked a day after someone else was blocked for evading a block. it definitely must be trolling seeing as they appealing via a sock account knowing all well & good that technical evidence shows they are a confirmed sock account. Celestina007 (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Wow! It may be trolling, but from what I've seen of the history of this editor I think it's more likely to be stupidity. Either way, thanks for pointing this out to me. I've declined the unblock request. JBW (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity it is then, or perhaps a “drowning UPE editor grasping at straws” Hypothetically speaking; especially when they must have received a financial reward for a “Job well executed” only for it to be subsequently deleted. That’s bad because they’d have to do a refund & even worse because it’s a dent on their “UPE reputation/street cred” It goes something like this “Don’t use Mr John doe xyz I Paid Mr John doe xyz but my page got deleted. That is the worst nightmare for any UPE editor. Celestina007 (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Yes, I suppose grasping at straws is a third possibility, along with trolling and stupidity. Also, I suppose some of the things that look to me like stupidity may not do so to someone who doesn't have the kind of past experience of how sockpuppeteers work that I have, and even more so if they don't realise that their deleted editing history is visible to an administrator. In any case, I am sure you are right about the devastating effect that deletions of articles may have on paid editors' livelihoods. To me, that is one of the main reasons for upholding the policy that pages created by block-evading editors can be deleted: it's the only disincentive we have to continuing sockpuppetry for such persistent block-evading UPE editors. Of course, it doesn't always work, or even anywhere near always, but for someone who doesn't care at all about following Wikipedia's requirements or about honesty, and who regards anything that earns them money as legitimate business, it's the only thing which stands any chance at all of discouraging them from continuing. JBW (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct!! Celestina007 (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Continued vandalism"

You deleted my submission to the wikimedia commons and a draft that frankly I forgot I had and didn't know could not be in draft, you also deleted my contributions to Kirkwood because "No source", the source is their website, do some research and look for yourself instead of being a trigger happy cowboy next time. Next time instead of just spamming delete button at least fact check first. And in regards to the flag, I've seen many things on wikimedia commons that don't exist or are "hoaxes" so I assumed that It was just a place to upload images, my bad for misinterpreting it. The word "hoax" implies I was trying to fool somebody, i wasn't I just wanted to use the flag in a sandbox creation I was doing. I hope you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryCar28 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BryCar28, and thank you for expressing your concerns. I shall try to answer some of your points.

I have not deleted anything from Wikimedia Commons; in fact I can't, as I am not a Commons administrator. I haven't even nominated anything you posted there for deletion, so I have no idea how you got the impression that I deleted whatever it was. If something you uploaded to Commons has been deleted and you think it was done erroneously, then you need to take it up with the Commons administrator who deleted it.
You are right in saying that the word "hoax" implies an intention to "fool somebody", but whether you intended to deceive or not, making fictitious pages such as John Muir Alpine International Airport is likely to mislead people into believing that it is true, so the effect is exactly the same. I am somewhat at a loss how you could have created that page without expecting that some people would believe it, but whether you did so or not makes little difference: creating pages which present fiction as fact is unacceptable. There are plenty of web sites where that kind of thing is welcome, and you may like to try editing on one of those.
Drafts are for preparation of pages to become articles; they are not personal playing spaces, and should not contain anything which is not intended to become an article.
The onus is on the editor who adds content to an article to provide a source, not on other people. It is unreasonable to expect others to search to find the source, when you must already know where you got it from, so you could easily provide a reference without having to search. (In any case, whether you agree that is unreasonable or not, it is Wikipedia policy.)
I see that you have restored the content that I deleted for lack of citation to a source, and you have still not provided a source. Wikipedia policy is that content removed because of a lack of citation to a source must not be restored without providing such a citation. Please do provide a citation to a source.
Childish name-calling such as "trigger happy cowboy" does not make the person doing it look very sensible, as well as showing an intention of being unpleasant to another person. I don't recommend it, both because it will discourage editors from taking you seriously and because it is against Wikipedia's policy on civility.

I hope that those remarks will help to clear up some of your concerns, but please feel welcome to drop me a friendly message if you have anything else you think I may be able to help you with. JBW (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Vibroacoustic Therapy

Hello JBW, Greetings! The page Vibroacoustic Therapy is create-protected. Would you please lift its restriction? I am requesting as because of this draft at AfC. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 13:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gpkp:

Done JBW (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JBW. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my reports

I been reporting disruptive editing at AIV as long I was here, and most admins take the report and blocked the disruptive editor, my recent report is not so different then the other reports I did before. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My content removal was explained by giving a reason to it, it is not acceptable that a fake information is still on wikipedia, only because of a subjective interpretation of a particular person. Moreover I disagree with your opinion that my name suggests a collectivity; even if it is my name or not, I am certainly a single person who edits stuff, not to say that your name is not a very realistic one. Please be more objective next time. HistoTeam (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]