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 Roland Of Yew (talk | contribs) at 09:29, 9 January 2021 (→‎Foreign recipients of the Legion D’Honneur). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

A Joyous Yuletide to You!


JACKINTHEBOX • TALK is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas

--Deepfriedokra (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Group accounts and autobiographies

Also pretty obvious, don't you think? (I don't think they're really a group, though the name is.) Lemme see... I'm pretty sure there's something coming up... oh yeah, happy new year! Bishonen | tålk 20:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Bishonen, good to hear from you. Please take a happy new year for yourself, too. Now, it just may be that explicitly spelling this out could be seen as insulting your intelligence, but I didn't for one moment think it really was a group, nor did I expect anything other than a self-promotional vanity page. However, I thought it best to get some sort of warning in, and the user name was the only thing that had been done so far, so that was the only thing I could latch onto. Many administrators might have imposed a user name block, but I regard that as a mistake, for a number of reasons, most importantly because it encourages them to resurface under some totally different user name, where their unacceptable editing may go unnoticed, whereas if they are allowed to stay with their existing user name then I can watch out for anything that needs action. (Though of course there is always the risk that some other administrator will come along and spoil things by taking action herself, depriving me of the opportunity. Hmmph. Growwwl.) I suppose now we could hard-block the account, as it has both edited promotionally and continued to edit under a user name which it has been told is unacceptable, but I really don't see any point in doing that. JBW (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Bishonen. I didn't check as carefully as I should have done before posting the message above. I see that the account has been blocked. I wouldn't have done that, but never mind. JBW (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, friend Not-James. I don't like to block over just the username either (unless it's obscene or whatever — a different kind of case). It just encourages them to stuff beans up their nose. Especially with the soft-block template actually suggesting they simply create a new account. Bishonen | tålk 22:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Article created by a sock

Hi JBW, quick question. If an article was created by a sockpuppet and the bulk of the content are from those sockpuppets (content consisting of OR, unreliably sourced claims, and POV claims that are not supported by the sources/references and deceptively used to pretend like they are), should the article be deleted? The specific article I'm talking about is: Legality of bestiality in the United States. It was created by the blocked sock User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast, reverted and redirected by another editor [2] because "some or most of the 'references' do not support what is written in the article", but the sock reverted and re-created the article. Once the sock was blocked, they block-evaded and continued socking to disruptively edit the article (the bulk of the deceptive and unreliably sourced content of that article comes from the sock). Do articles like this, ones created by sockpuppets and mainly edited by block-evading socks, usually stay or do they get deleted? Some1 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1: The short answer, I think, is that there is no answer to what "usually" happens, because this is a very unusual situation. If I had known of the situation shortly after the creation of the article I would have deleted it, whereas usually if an article has escaped deletion for several years it has by then acquired "substantial edits by others", thus disqualifying WP:CSD#G5. On this occasion, however, your comments above suggest that almost all of the content is from the original creator of the article, using various sockpuppets, even though it has been around for a long time.
What exactly does "substantial edits by others" mean? Like various other expressions used in the criteria for speedy deletion, "substantial" is not clearly defined, and has to be a matter of judgement. Usually there have either clearly been substantial edits by others or there clearly haven't, and in the minority of doubtful cases after a little checking it is usually not too difficult to come to a conclusion, but in this case there is such a large number of edits by other editors interspersed among the sockpuppet edits that it is difficult to see how much "substantial" editing there is in there. I have checked a fairly large proportion of the editing, and I have not seen any individual substantial edits which are not by either certain or likely sockpuppets, but it takes a lot of checking to be sure. (Having said that, there have been only 458 edits, which is a small number in proportion to the time the article has existed, so it isn't an impossible task, just a rather tedious one.) Also, are the suspected but unblocked accounts sockpuppets? (There are two that I know of.) Then there are your other concerns of "OR, unreliably sourced claims, and POV claims that are not supported by the sources/references", which could on their own justify deletion, irrespective of the sockpuppet issue.
I'll try to look further into this, starting with checking whether the latest alleged sockpuppet really is one, and if so following it up with other issues. However, it may take me a while to do that, so please feel free to ask for help elsewhere if I don't get back to you soon; I won't regard it as forum shopping. Also please do feel totally welcome to remind me if you don't hear from me again within a couple of days; I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I really really intend to do often get completely lost as my mind moves off uncontrollably onto other things, so I regard reminders as help, not harassment. JBW (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed response; there's quite a lot I still have to learn around here so your comment was really insightful and informative. And thanks for being willing to look into this (and the SPI case). Not sure if this helps but suspected socks Gdca1 and AHC300 are both in the March 2018 archive (which unfortunately closed due to inactivity, but I think you probably already saw); Pro-Randian ([3][4]) from 2013 is also a suspected sockpuppet but is not in the archive; Dawkinsfan44 was blocked for being a sock but is not listed in the archive. (It makes me wonder if there are more blocked Latitude socks out there than what's currently in the archive.) I haven't posted this to the case page yet, but I noticed that the majority of those socks don't have userpages. The first of those socks I encountered was Plateau99 and they never had a userpage [5] even though the account was created in 2004. AHC300 also doesn't have a userpage even though that account was created in 2014, a month after the latest sock was blocked [6] (also no userpage [7]).
There's no rush or deadline, so feel free to look into all this at your own convenience; waiting for your comments is definitely better than having the SPI case closed due to inactivity (for a second time). HNY, Some1 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled video games debate

I would like your advice on my recent edits, due to an accusation of disruptive editing and creating inappropriate pages. I am simply trying to preserve what would become potentially deleted information for which I have spent months compiling. I have examined the rules, but nothing in my activities fits into either accusation placed. So far I've been given a stern warning, but no consensus or input from other users. Also the content of my created articles meets Wikipedia content policies with sufficient sources and notability. If I'm doing anything wrong, just let me know and I will try to amend it. Thank you and happy 2021. Deltasim (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I would like to withdraw my complaint. If you need more information go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled Sega Genesis games. Thank you. Deltasim (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted an article

Hello JBW, Happy New Year. on 29 December 2020 you have deleted an article made by me "Draft:Mawlana Kabiruddin Rahmani". This article is about my Grand Father . I just want to know if I can resubmit it or not. Please do help me understand and guide me to make a proper article. Also I would like to know why is such a hurry was this article was deleted. you could have given me time to fix the errors that I made. Help me out here. Pushon007 06:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushon007 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pushon007: As you know, the article was nominated for deletion by an editor known as Onel5969, and you then moved it to draft space, perhaps in the hope of avoiding deletion. The article was full of praise and adulation of its subject, and it also has a substantial amount of personal opinion and judgement, contrary to the policy that all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia policy is that any page which serves little or no purpose other than promoting its subject may be deleted immediately. If you think that policy should be changed then you are free to seek to get it changed; however, I see my task as an administrator as being to uphold the existing policy, as long as it is policy.
Some promotional articles can be salvaged by a little editing, as would be the case with the page in question if it were just a matter of removing such adulatory terms as "great", "talented", "wise", "brilliant", and the expression of personal opinions, such as that "the biggest asset is Knowledge and Humanity". However, the problem runs much deeper than that, as the whole tenor and character of the page is a matter of impressing the reader with how noble a person the subject of the writing was, so that it would be difficult to make it acceptable without a complete rewrite from scratch. If you have taken in what I wrote to you about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline then you will also be aware that it is highly likely that you will not be the person to do that job.
My advice is that any work you put into writing about your grandfather in Wikipedia is likely to be wasted, and you would be much better off writing about him somewhere else where the kind of writing you have done is accepted, and/or writing in Wikipedia on other subjects where you do not have a personal involvement or strong personal opinions. Nevertheless, I shall restore the draft, so that if you choose not to take that advice then you can try to improve it, and then submit it for review. However, if you do decide to take that route then don't move it from draft to article yourself, and do make 100% sure that you follow the conflict of interest guideline fully.
One last point. The page fully and unambiguously qualifies for speedy deletion as promotional, and thousands of pages far less promotional than that one get deleted for that reason. Therefore, if the page remains in its present state it will sooner or later be deleted again, and very probably stay deleted. JBW (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: First of all Thankyou for restoring the article. I have understood the issues perfectly. This time I will rewrite and provide more reference as you have advised and will resubmit for review again. I will follow the conflict of interest guideline fully. I am very much obliged to you and other administrators. Thank you again and hopefully I will be able to be a better submitter gradually.

Moving drafts to article land

Hey JBW,

I look at my watchlist and noticed that you moved a draft to article space and then deleted the redirect. Is there some rule or reason for deleting the redirect? It certainly would leave the impression to the original authors that their article was trashed instead of promoted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oiyarbepsy: I guess you must mean Draft:Predictive engineering analytics. If so, it was a minor slip, so I've restored the redirect. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. JBW (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Li_(surname_黎) People

Information about Hainan is stated as Chinese language in the reference. It is 海南. It should be ok to link between Chinese source information to EN wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanachai.viyavuthi (talk • contribs) 05:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanachai.viyavuthi: OK, I checked the text of the html page and found nothing supporting your edit, but I now see that there is writing in the jpeg image as well as text. JBW (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP range block

Hi, I see you performed a range block on the IP 2600:1002:B025:2B31:0:0:0:0/64, also using some nifty tool to revert several of their live edits. What was it specifically that prompted this action? I can't see anything linking this to any AN/ANI or SPI thread.

It's just that this editor added a whole lot of material to List of female chess players and Women in chess that I personally dislike a lot, but which other editors insist on keeping, citing WP:SOFIXIT. Most of it is sourced, but often not very well (Ariana Grande's skin tone anyone?). It's very hard to find a way forward with the (new) Women in chess article if we're forced to start from the basis of this user's random and incoherent history. Basically, nobody is motivated enough to wade through all that crap and try to shape something coherent out of it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxBrowne2: I was looking at edit-warring at List of female chess players. How I came to that article I don't remember. (I may possibly have been led to it by investigation of editing by new accounts, or by a link to it on some notice board or other.) In the course of doing so I noticed that someone editing from IP addresses beginning 2600:1002:b.... had made edits similar to those from the IP address 100.11.62.135, which had been blocked by Girth Summit for block evasion. Looking further I found further similarities in editing not only on that article but on other articles too, and it became clear beyond any doubt that it was the same person, so I blocked the range. (I now see that the range I blocked does not in fact cover all of the IP editing in question; evidently I didn't look as carefully as I should have done.) I thought of asking Girth Summit about his IP block on 100.11.62.135. In particular I considered asking which were the blocked account(s) and/or IP address(es) for which 100.11.62.135 was evading blocks, but I didn't, perhaps because I was short of time. He may like to comment now.
As you have probably noticed, I reverted one of the re-additions of the disputed material from List of female chess players, because I agreed with an earlier editor who thought it inappropriate in a list article. I haven't studied it carefully enough to have any opinion as to whether it is suitable for inclusion in Women in chess, and I don't intend to do so, as I have no wish to get involved there. However, I do agree that the colour of Ariana Grande's skin is irrelevant, and if there's more stuff at that level then you may be right in using the word "crap". The appeal to WP:SOFIXIT is totally off the point, because that is about being bold and making changes that you think are improvements, and there is nothing whatever there that says that the improvement you wish to make can't consist of removing content you regard as inappropriate. I can only assume that the editors who appeal to that guideline either have never read it or have failed to understand it. They appear to think SOFIXIT means "if you think content is unsuitable then improve it so that it becomes suitable, but you should never remove it", which is not only not what the guideline says, but is also nonsense.
I posted a warning on edit-warring to the editor who has been repeatedly adding the material to List of female chess players in the face of reverts from several other editors, and if I see that they have returned to doing the same then I shall consider whether to post a report at the edit-warring notice board. I see from Talk:Women in chess that you are not the only editor to have expressed concern about some of that article's content, but unless a consensus is established on that talk page that the material does or doesn't belong in the article I don't see any obvious way of resolving the dispute. JBW (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JBW, I'm on mobile at the moment, but I will look into the reasons for that block tomorrow and get back to you. Best GirthSummit (blether) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to relate to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dante8/Archive. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne2, thanks, yes, that's the right one - it's Dante8. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 06:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign recipients of the Legion D’Honneur

Hello, you deleted many British military veteran recipients of the Legion D’Honneur from the above article correct? I believe you cited as your reason for the deletion ‘lack of citations’ associated with each veteran? However, listed in the article is a link to the French embassy defence attache’s database which clearly lists each veteran, the year they were awarded the honour and the degree. With this in mind, could I ask you to revert your deletion please? Roland Of Yew (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roland Of Yew: Can you give me the exact title of the article? There is no article titled Foreign recipients of the Legion D’Honneur, nor is there any article containing the word "Legion" in its title in my last 1000 edits to articles. JBW (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: Of course and thanks for the speedy response. Here is the link and here is your edit I can personally supply some of the documentation in regards to one individual, my father. However, doesn’t that come under WP:NOR? Roland Of Yew (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Roland Of Yew: OK, thanks for the link to the article, but I can't see the link to the French embassy defence attache’s database which you refer to, so perhaps you can point that out to me. However, I doubt that would be a lot of use. At best it would serve as verification for the award, but it would do nothing to establish that the recipients satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which they need to do to justify being in a list article: see Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists of people). In fact there is rarely any need for references of any kind in list articles, because the entries on the list should have suitable references in their respective articles. JBW (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: I am a little confused here, I thought that under notability/military personal the highest award is permissible ? The reason I mention that is, all Medal of Honor recipients are listed irrespective of notability....Roland Of Yew (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW&oldid=999269692"