User talk:JBW

Posting to this page

== About edit war ==

The user undo my edits and insist removing images in Lot (Bible) and Sodom and Gomorrah again and again. I think this is WP:harass. Maybe that user want to edit war however I don't like this. Can you please block that user as you talked from above? Thanks. --Player23 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no question at present of my blocking one party to this edit war and not the other. I have responded at User talk:Player-23#Request for intervention on edit warring, and also posted an almost identical message at User talk:MCSKY#Request for intervention on edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for assistance for block that user not only because of the edit war, and more is harassment. Someone using a new account to target a user in certain field is simply harassment. I just want to quit the edit war and I think that if not stop that user more harassment maybe come to me. Whatever thanks your comment.--Player23 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That user harass me again! In Sodom and Gomorrah arcticle. Just a few days after he revert my edits again. PLEASE BAN THAT USER FOR NO MORE HARASSMENT TOWARDS TO ME.--Player23 (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That user insist in edit war. After the edit war a few days he is watching my contributions. I hate to being targeted by that user. Another user doing in same way in Chinese wiki, similar behaviour. It may be his puppets.--Player23 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Please add any more comments on this topic to this section, rather than starting a new section with the same title each time you comment.
2. You repeatedly say that the other editor is harassing you, but I see no evidence of it. Do you think that reverting your edits is in itself harassment? If so then I have to disagree: it looks to me like a sincere disagreement about the content of the article.
3. You say that you "just want to quit the edit war". Then why not just stop? It really is easy: you just have to stop doing it.
4. I am a little disappointed that neither of you responded to my last attempt to help, but much more importantly I see that considerable progress has been made towards producing a compromise version, with both of you participating. In this situation for you to keep calling for a ban on MCSKY does not seem constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit war is colded after a few days, so I think there is no edit war again and making consensus of other wikipedians (the page view stat is high). However that user watch it and just revert my edits. This is targeted revert. Furthermore, it is only revert by him, no any other wikipians doing this. If you or other wikipedians revert the images, it is another issue.--Player23 (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not respond to the request because I don't know if agreeing to it would mean I can not edit the articles anymore.

player23, I reverted your edit because the image is terrible for the page Sodom and Gomorrah. The city of Sodom itself can barely be seen in the background, and the main subject is Lot and his daughters. The article is already illustrated by sufficient images, which all clearly depict the city of Sodom. Simply inserting irrelevant images makes the article harder to navigate and read, and it creates a disconnect between the images and the text it illustrates.

It is not a targeted revert towards you, and I have no accounts in other encyclopedias. MCSKY (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi all - I'm out of this before I get caught in the crossfire. Strong suggestion to all involved that you take JamesBWatson's initial advice - there are 3,372,853 other articles to edit! Friendly regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Owler69, no recent vandalism?

You declined to block this user, but he had vandalism this week, created an inappropriate page, and all his other edits have been vandalism. If an account vandalizes, waits a month, vandalizes again, and so on, are we just to allow this behavior? That seems to be the case here. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 16:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism was almost all restricted to one session on 2 August 2010. There has been no vandalism since then. There has been no vandalism since the last warning. The editor has said that they have given up vandalism and will be constructive from now on. Certainly I have known vandals to say that and then continue to vandalise, but under the circumstances I see no reason not to give them a chance: if and when vandalism re-starts it will be a different matter. If we say to someone "please stop vandalising, or you may be blocked", and then after another four days in which there has been no more vandalism to suddenly block them seems to me an odd procedure, unless there are special reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking back at his contributions, almost everything was vandalism. He says he wanted to vandalize and now he won't, but that's a real rarity. — Timneu22 · talk 19:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

GRADUATE PHARMACY APTITUDE TEST

Sir as you have deleted an article written by me with the same title,i want to ensure you that this new article written by me does not match with the previous article body that had been claimed to be copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarbjeet30 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is a copyright infringement or not, if it is anything like the first version it is totally unsuitable as an encyclopaedia article for several reasons. You even said on the article's talk page that your purpose in posting it was "in order to get students knowledge about the newly updated syllabus for the new examination of GPAT the article", in other words you were attempting to use Wikipedia as a web host for other purposes than writing an encyclopaedia, which is against Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

since there is the page of GATE(graduate aptitude test for engineering)it is the new exam .so it is a encyclopedic topic as it is the new thing,and be there in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarbjeet30 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be intended to mean that there is a Wikipedia article on "Graduate aptitude test for engineering" and there therefore should be one on "Graduate pharmacy aptitude test". If that is so, then there are two points:

1. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.
2. There may be significant differences between the two cases, meaning that there is more notability for one than for the other, or simply that the one article is better written than the other. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Kipzock

You deleted my userpage. Please reverse this action. This is not a hoax, I as a matter of fact have self awarded this award, in accordance with the guidelines of the award. Kipzock (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As far as I can tell from this and User talk:Kipzock, it was deleted as a hoax for having a wrong level of award--is that right? dffgd talk·edits 20:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all I said I deleted it as "blatant misinformation", which it clearly was: it claimed a level of editing which the user did not have. Secondly, as for "self awarded this award, in accordance with the guidelines of the award": nonsense. The guideline is that it is awarded when you have reached a certain amount of editing. Certainly it says that you assess this yourself, but that means you check whether you have done the appropriate number of edits you have done yourself, not that you give it to yourself when you feel like lying about your editing history. As far as I am concerned putting deliberate misinformation into any Wikipedia page is vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

“ These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty, and displaying the right one does not indicate authority or competence. ” — WP:SERVICE

Just saying. dffgd talk·edits 23:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear JamesBWatson, I kindly asked you to restore my user page. I think, I have done nothing wrong. Instead of replying to me you deleted the backup version of my userpage in my userspace. Your objection to the template (I placed on my page) has been duly noted here. However there is no reason to keep deleting pages on my userspace, only cause your objection might not be seen as relevant by the community. If you continue to misuse your admin privileges, I will report you at the incidents board. Kipzock (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think, this is a blatant misuse of CSD what you are doing. Re: "deliberate misinformation into any Wikipedia page is vandalism" What wikipedia pages have been vandalized, except from your action of deleting my userpage. Kipzock (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

James, please see User:Kipzock/userpage, User:Kipzock/Jimbo2, and User:Kipzock/Barnstars, all identical in content to the deleted hoax page, and ALL created (or recreated) after this user recieved a final warning about this very matter. WuhWuzDat 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note what I said earlier! According to WP:SVC, "displaying the wrong one carries no penalty." dffgd talk·edits 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view, JamesBWatson is wholly correct in his actions to date. And Dffgd please note that Kipzock has to date suffered no penalty for displaying the template in question. He has merely been prevented from doing so. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

“ This only applies to cases where the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism. ” — {{db-hoax}}

Okay, this is jumping around, so also note what I've said here and here. @ Anthony.bradbury: In reply to your above comment and your comment here: Do I think the pages should be deleted? Yes. Do I think they should be deleted per G3? No. Do I think the user should be warned? Yes. Do I think they should be given template warnings, including a final warning? No. Yes, I'm not an admin, but that shouldn't make much difference. Yes, this is just my opinion, but it comes from what I've seen on WP:SVC, WP:G3, and {{db-hoax}}. Enough said for the moment. (Now, after all that, I think I need a little break from typing...) dffgd talk·edits 22:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to the G3 criteria quoted above, is claiming ONE MILLION edits, when the user in question has 19 edits, or claiming 15 years of service, when Wikipedia itself is less than 10 years old, anything less than a blatantly obvious hoax? WuhWuzDat 23:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is potential here for much fun for anyone who likes Wikilawyering. One could argue ad nauseam about whether deleting a page is a "penalty", about exactly what constitutes "vandalism", and so on and so on. I also note that dffgd has argued on this question in several places, and that others have argued on the other side in each of those places. However, as far as I am concerned, the idea that it is acceptable to use Wikipedia pages to post deliberate misinformation is absurd. If you are the kind of person who likes quotes from guidelines and policies to support everything then they can be given, but they are not needed. The attitude that editing Wikipedia is just a childish game in which we are free to play games and tell lies as long as we do it in ways that do not break some specific written-down "rules" is unhelpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Shadowjams#JamesBWatson

I would appreciate a response from you regarding your recent comment. Shadowjams (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry... actually it's all kind of funny in that I misunderstood you misunderstanding me. I'm sorry for not seeing through your jest. Shadowjams (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

James, you ought to know that any attempt at humour must be preceded by a Request for process in order to be compliant. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I do love process. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD on List of Hijos De Rebelde's characters

Prod was removed by an IP, just thought I'd let you know. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jes homosexual supporter.

So now it's "controversial" to be gay? Or to support the gay community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.12.185 (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it certainly is controversial to be gay: otherwise there would be no need "to support the gay community". It is much less less controversial now than it once was. However, the essential point about the edits to which you are no doubt referring is that you did not cite any sources to support your statement. It is true that one of the templated messages on your talk page also mentioned the desirability of discussing "potentially controversial edits", but this was a minor aside, really. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Jes age

Then could you at least update her age for me. Here's the source, she's 40: http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/searchpreview.aspx?utm_source=123people&utm_campaign=pubrec&utm_content=name&fn=jessica&ln=brieden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.12.185 (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rv on Self-determination

Hi,

I just thought I would notify you of why I had reverted what an IP user has added, which I reverted. The user added

“ Currently a massive local insurgency is on the ascendant in Kashmir targeting Indian rule in the Kashmiri parts under the control of India.Pakistan has cited the Human rights violations in Kashmir,including genocide and rape of Kashmiri Muslim civilians, at the hands of the Indian Army, and the continued presence of Indian soldiers in Kashmir as reasons for not withdrawing its troops. ”

This is naked and blatant POV as you understand. The user has not even provided a source for a Pakistani government allegation of this demeneour. The same accusations have been placed on Pakistani soldiers on the other side of the LOC. Also, I am not Indian nor Pakistani, unlike this IP user who is from Rawalpindi. I am sure that you understand it is completely wrong for Wikipedia to harbour these views, though. Wikipedia shouldn't become a mouthpiece for Zaid Hamid or a mirror of rupeenews.com.

Many Thanks.

--92.8.124.45 (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re user below:

This is in response to the user below:

a)IP address is registered in Rawalpindi

b)I don't see a correlation between a wrong location and neutrality

c)where was a reference removed?

d)all references added were added to prove the point: Both sides have committed violations.

Thanks. --92.8.124.45 (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

concerning the statement above

This is in response to the user above,concerning my edits to the self-determination page:

a)I'm not computing from Rawalpindi.I'm computing from Lahore;

b)As the user above stated a false location I have doubts about his/her neutrality;

c)IF the same accusation has been placed on the soldiers on the left side then BOTH should be mentioned with proper reference instead of one being deleted and having the whole matter of mass genocide and rape shoved under the carpet.It is a consequence of the self-determination movement and therefore must be mentioned;and

d)Balwaristan.net is a politically oriented site promoting ethnic nationalism and such politically motivated sites don't really deserve wiki reference.Correct me if I'm wrong here but I do believe accusations placed by worldwide human rights organizations surpass,in weightage,accusations placed by ethno-political sites.Therefore,I will place fairly neutral references to substantiate my claim and the user above should do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.219.118 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Need your help

I saw your name in the Editor_Assistance page. I would appreciate your help about how to use Rfc, NoticeBoard and Arbitration. I am currently working on the Transcendental Meditation (TM) article, which may not be a subject of interest to you, but this is good because then you have a neutral perspective. Since I opened my account, editors that are sceptic of TM are constantly using the above tools. Me and others editors which are positive toward TM have not much experience with them. The sceptics seems much more experienced. They thus as the advantage of presenting the issues in their own way. They also have the advantage that the TM organisation is bringing out new concepts and people are normally sceptics.

However, my objective is only that all meta-analyses about the effect of meditation, which are published in peer-reviewed journals, receive about the same weight, the most recent receiving an higher weight. The sceptics position is that only some meta-analyses that used some clinical standard (but not developed for studies on meditation) should be represented. They give a very low weight to other meta-analyses because of some connection with the TM organisation, either through a declared funding or because some authors are affiliated with TM. On the other hand, it turns out that the meta-analyses that they consider have been prepared for governmental agencies with a peer-review process that they declare themselves as non standard. I say that discrediting a source because of a TM affiliation is a one-sided argument because a similar argument cannot be applied to authors, referees and editors that are opposed to TM, even though they potentially exist. (I believe they actually exist, especially in the context of a non standard peer-review, but that is not a part of the argument.)

Perhaps, you would not want to take position, but at the least you could give us some advices about doing our own Rfc, appeal to a recent Arbitration decision, etc. What is the best way to proceed from the current situation? Here are examples of action taken by the sceptics:

• Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:TimidGuy_and_User:Littleolive_oil_and_Edith_Sirius_Lee
• Rfc: Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#RfC:_How_to_best_summarize_the_scientific_literature_on_TM
• NoticeBoard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#AHRQ_and_Transcendental_Meditation

This may also be useful: Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_33#What_is_wrong_with_this_2008_meta-analysis.3F

Any comment or advice will be appreciated. Is TimidGuy banned from participating in an eventual mediation process? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is far from clear to me exactly what kind of help you are asking for. You clearly have experience of RFC, Arbitration, etc, and can scarcely want instructions on the mechanical aspects such as where to find them. Are you asking for advice on how to present your case to its best effect? That would certainly be asking me to become involved and "take a position", which you indicate is not what you want. Perhaps you can be more specific. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not much experience is needed to find the tools, I can do that, but how to best use them is another story. So, Yes, I hoped that with your experience of the Wikipedia environment you could help us about which angle can be taken to address this situation (the Rfc, the Noticeboard, the Arbitration), but without getting directly involved in the discussions. If your personal view is pushing you in any degree toward one side, it will be better that it is favourable. In principle, one can use its knowledge of an audience (the Wikipedia environment) to support a case while not believing in it, but there is a chance that it will not be done well. Having no strong opinion on the subject, only a fair and logical attitude, will be excellent. It is just very hard to find people that remains neutral after they look at a case. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add this info: [1]. This diff is about one aspect only, but the general spirit is that you would be helping me only, not one side in the dispute. I think it would make much more sense in this way. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your last posting. Unfortunately I didn't have time to give it my full attention at the time you posted it, and then it got lost behind other posts here, and forgotten. I have looked at the case carefully, and it seems to me that you and others are engaged in a concerted effort not only to plug a particular point of view, but to suppress expression of other points of view. You are not willing to accept the results of various attempts to resolve the dispute, but seem determined to seek out ways of setting aside those results, and find other avenues for getting your way. This adversarial approach is not helpful to Wikipedia, and I am not willing to assist it. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I am not sure what you are referring to when you wrote "in a concerted effort ... to suppress expression of other points of view." You could have more directly written "you and your gang are POV pushers" and the message would have been the same. You only used more elaborated words to say the same thing. That was not helpful. I am very disappointed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. I think taking the trouble to say what I mean clearly, precisely and civilly is far better than throwing careless insults around, which for some reason you would have preferred. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarence C Hulley

Hi, I wanted to alert you that I have removed the BLP-prod tag from the above article. The article claims that he died in 1981, which would not make it a BLP. I apologize if this is an incorrect action. Quasihuman (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. I really should learn to read more carefully. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry for the mistake. New to the site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackerjohn23 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:82.45.192.123

I have seen that you blocked for 48 hours the user User:82.45.192.123 on August 4. Unfortunately, she/he made today silly modifications to the entries Rory Williams and River Song (Doctor Who). What should I do ? Hektor (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Clearly a repeat offender, so I've blocked them for one week. Favonian (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

:o

yer hey um that is my teacher that im editing with true information so why cant i edit it without getting told off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peopleofaustralia (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"A new, fresh sensational group" is an opinion, not a fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

then what would i write then ? because she does do a singing group at my school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peopleofaustralia (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

if you can find verifiable information about it in reliable sources, and if the information is significant enough to be worth inclusion in an encyclopaedia article, then there should be no problem with adding it. However, "I know it's true because it happens in my school" is not a reliable source, and "it must be significant because it's interesting to me and others in my school" is not a justification for inclusion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Md Saiful Alam

The article bearing a meaningful concept by the word Md Saiful Alam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiful 9999 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This must be a reference to the deletion of Md Saiful Alam. Have a look at WP:Notability and WP:BIO, and you will see that being a "meaningful concept" is not a valid reason for a Wikipedia article. It is also clear from your user page that you are Md Saiful Alam, so that the article was self-promotion. Have a look at WP:SOAP to see Wikipedia's policy on promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will not try to write on the topic Md Saiful Alam

Dear Sir, Thanks for your opinion. Sure, next time I will not try to write on the topic Md. Saiful Alam

Sincerely, saiful_9999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiful 9999 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Imperial China

Hi, this article was reverted again by Coconut91. I already reverted three times so I am reluctant to revert the edit again. My edit is clearly backed by the source "Pratt, Keith L.; Rutt, Richard; Hoare, James (1999). Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary. Routledge. p. 482. ISBN 0700704639.". I am suspecting the Coconut91 (talk · contribs) and 74.72.15.7 (talk · contribs) are Sockpuppet. I would appreciate you to take an appropriate measure to prevent this vandalism. Thanks. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your neutral action. However I am a bit concerned about 74.72.15.7 (talk · contribs). The same vandalism is occurring on Tribute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please keep paying attention to the article. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I supplemented and slightly modified the inline citation at List of tributaries of Imperial China which was restored by you here.

The actual copy of the initially cited must have Pratt listed as first author; but OCLC lists Hoare as first author. I used the version which was online verifiable. Under the circumstances, I wondered if there might be a need for me to explain this?

I do not have a copy of this book, but I was able to verify the accuracy of the citation using Google in a non-obvious way:

• re: Goryo (173 tribute missions)

using "173 tribute missions" as search topic in Google books yields several "hits", including this one — http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=173+tribute+missions&btnG=Search+Books

• re: Baekje (45 tribute missions)

using "45 tribute missions" ... yields ... — http://books.google.com/books?id=e7pyBEWioLsC&pg=PA482&dq=45+tribute+missions&hl=en&ei=_4ViTLTYBYS8lQeF_7jTCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA

• re: Unified Silla (63 tribute missions in 8th century)

using "63 tribute missions in 8th century" ... yields ... — http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=63+tribute+missions+in+8th+century&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I hope this mitigates a "problem" which was never really a problem. --Tenmei (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stubes99 is back...

with the following ip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.2.197.54 (79.117.139.95 (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

thanks a lot...just one request... is it possible to extend the block of his original acoount http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stubes99 from 2 weeks ( as it was until today, when his sock Stears555 was blocked) to indef time block? (79.117.139.95 (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

For now I have extended the block to one month, because, as well as block evasion, there was some vandalism. I don't think that an indefinite block would be justified yet. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He is back again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.2.20.115 (79.117.151.215 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

I have blocked the latest IP and edit-protected the article Hungary. I will consider further action. Please let me know of any more trouble. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I see, the text added by him here is not correctly referenced. At the respective page it is only a table and the added text "the genetic relation of Hungarians to Finno-Ugric peoples is excluded" does not exist there. I think the edit should be reverted (79.117.151.215 (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

... and again (he has added unreferenced info)

... and here with the IP 78.92.106.219 (the IP 78.92.xxx.xxx was used also in the past ) and with the IP 81.183.184.244(79.117.194.103 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Unfortunately I am out of time. You may like to consider raising a sock puppet investigation or a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, it is a blatant sock, just now, for the last time (79.117.194.103 (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Dear James In this section, your advisor was a romanian chauvinist. James, please don't restore Rogvaiv1's (Banned user Iaaasi) vandalism.

provide proofs for your affirmations (79.117.194.103 (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Accident?

[2]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Errm, yes. Clicked on the wrong link. What makes me feel silly though is that I did it twice. Oh, well... JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I had to take a look, and not only did you do it twice, you misspelled a word in both of them. The same word. The same misspelling! ☺ Who were you actually trying to block? dffgd talk·edits 14:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stubes99, and when I finally got it right I got the spelling right too. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! :) Jmlk17 18:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

..

Why dont you alow me to edit article on "Islam music". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin.mah (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

CHROMuLAN deletion

Please, can you reply to my questions in already deleted CHROMuLAN discussion page. I have put copy on my talk page as well. I agree, that CHROMuLAN is not so major achievement but it contributed and made cheaper or possible more significant researches and I think that at CHROMuLAN at least deserves mentioning on Wikipedia and deletion without providing description or moving to some temporary place to discuss the facts looks to me like impolite.

If the main problem is that I am personally connected to the project then I can try to ask some users to write unbiased article. But it is not optimal probably as well. So at least starting article myself seems to me as more clean solution. I have found on Internet some CHROMuLAN review from some totally unrelated Japenese professor some years ago as well but I do not have it on hand now. There are more references to it in Czech language and many in reseach articles in the lists of used equipment.

Thanks for any non robotic reply in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppisa (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Added reply to your comment on my talk page. Ppisa (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

tb

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hampton (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Hampton7c's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User talk:AceBornSoul

This page appears to be a clone of your talk page, thought you may be interested in it, and the user who created it. WuhWuzDat 19:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this you? On the suspicion it is not, I've gone ahead and shut down the account as an impersonator, but if it is, just unblock it and revert me. - Vianello (Talk) 19:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How fascinating. I wonder why they would want to do that. Both my talk page and my user page were cloned. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate to assume bad faith so readily, but if it wasn't you or someone you know, I literally cannot imagine any non-malicious reason. - Vianello (Talk) 21:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't either. However, since these two clonings were the only edits from this account before it was blocked, there is no other clue. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Blinded by Faith Feedback

Hi JamesBWatson,

I was wondering if it would be possible to obtain some feedback from you on the article I am currently working on? It would be much appreciated! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sk8ajoe/Blinded_by_Faith)

Thanks, -Sk8ajoe (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

Well, the first impression is that you have certainly made a more impressive show of assembling sources than was so in the original version of the article. however, examination of those sources suggests that many of them give only brief mention of Blinded by Faith, and others do not, on the face of it, appear to be independent of the subject. One minor point is that Wikipedia style is to use the form of a name most commonly recognised in English, and, while "Québec" certainly is used in English, "Quebec" is more usual. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Silent Note

Can you help the article Silent Note that it wont get deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid from theblock (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the editor who posted this request is blocked, and this talk page section will have been archived well before the block expires, I have answered at User talk:Kid from theblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Desktop Scientific

Hi There,

I see you deleted my article on desktop scientific,

I re-wrote the article making it non commercial, can you please give me a few suggestion about how to improve my article and what you mean by guidelines 11 as you stated in my message.

Please assist as I am new to this

Thanks Kyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleAraujo (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The first thing that strikes me about the article is that there are no sources cited for any of the information there. This means not only that the information is not verifiable, but also that there is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. I strongly recommend reading the general notability guideline (follow the blue link from the last sentence), and also the guideline on reliable sources. Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations is probably also worth looking at, and perhaps Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is a link in the article under the heading "References", but, although the linked page contains the expression "Desktop Scientific", it is not at all clear to me that it relates to the company which is the subject of the article. I have also made my own searches for evidence of notability of the company. This is not easy, as the words "Desktop" and "Scientific" can occur together in other contexts, but I have tried various combinations of search terms in attempts to limit coverage to the company in question (for example "South Africa" "Desktop Scientific" "Scientific Software" etc). I have failed to find anything even remotely suggesting notability. I also find it striking that you do not appear to see the article as promotional, despite the inclusion of language such as "Desktop Scientific’s vision is to empower ...". If you sincerely cannot see the promotional character of language such as this, then I can only assume that you have such a close connection with the company that you cannot stand back and see it from an objective perspective. If this is the case then you probably should not be writing a Wikipedia article on this subject, as you will not be able to do so from a neutral point of view. This is the essential point behind Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. You ask for clarification of the general criteria for speedy deletion, item 11. If you have not read that guideline (linked from the original message on your talk page, and again in the last sentence here) then I suggest you do so. The section "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" of the policy on "What Wikipedia is not" gives more detail. However, I should say that at present the lack of any evidence that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines is, in my assessment, more significant than the promotional character of the article, which is fairly mild and could easily be edited out. On the other hand no amount of editing or rewriting of an article will make a non-notable subject notable. If, as seems likely from what I have been able to find, the company does not satisfy our notability criteria, then you will probably be better off dropping the matter rather than wasting further time on it, only to see the article deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your message...

I have removed the vision section, you see I am new, so I dont understand how this works, I have compared my article to various other companies in the same industry which are listed in wikipedia, such as (barlow world limited) and IBM which is a joint partner of ours.

That's why there's litte written in the article, because EVERYTHING is deemed as promotional?

Ok, so I need cited/references?

If I get the South African Government, The The SACCI Business Confidence Index and all of the South African Universities to post press releases articles about our reputation will that be good enough? comment added by KyleAraujo (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 August 2010

I would think that asking other organisations to post press releases about your reputation would be a first class example of what would not be independent coverage, and what would be promotional in intention. Have you read the guidelines I have pointed you to? In particular, have you read the guideline on conflict of interest? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation

Wondering if you could undo the above deletion pls? It has already been refused a speedy on a previous occasion (I'd meant to rv that one last time I logged in.) Thanx. Misarxist (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have looked back at the deleted article, and it still looks to me unambiguously intended to promote the organisation. Is there any reason for undeleting it? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on it then. Reasons? it's obviously notable, a speedy had already been refused. Just remembered google cache & yes it's not quite what I remembered. I'll work on it, but from scratch. Sorry didn't think of that 1st.Misarxist (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the userfy, fwif :) Misarxist (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

By the time I got the last message but one I had already moved it to User:Misarxist/Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation for you to work on. You can work on it there or I can delete it again for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback|levlanepr

I've left you a message on my Talk Page. Would you mind assisting me in the article "Scott Tattar" to make it fall under Wikipedia guidelines as this is my first time and I may be doing it wrong.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levlanepr (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 August 2010

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported.
Message added 14:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-Tadija^speaks 14:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Tadija^speaks 14:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Levlanepr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Levlanepr (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)user levlanepr

Talkback again

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Levlanepr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I created the page for "Scott Tattar" using some of the help you've given. As a living person's bio, does this justify Wikipedia's terms?

Levlanepr (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time now to check it thoroughly, but at a glance it looks better than it was before. By the way, the idea of a "talkback" template is that you put it on my talk page to call my attention to a message on your talk page. You don't need a "talkback" here if the message is here. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Novachi page

Why did you delete Novachi page? It is encyclopedia content with useful information for the general public. The Novachi project is a public service project. I am a new contributor to wikipedia. Let me know how the page should be writen to meet the standards here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsn26 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As you probably know, the article has been deleted twice. Both times the deletion log gives the reason as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". If you honestly can't see that the article was written in a promotional manner then my guess is that you are closely involved in the subject of the article, so that you are not able to stand back and see the article from an objective perspective. As long as it is written as though its purpose is to tell people how good Novachi is, and how useful they will find it, it is likely to be deleted as promotional. It follows that a first step towards writing an article which may not be deleted is to write it from a neutral point of view. However, even if this is done there is the question of whether it will satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Wikipedia requires that a subject has had a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources independent of that subject for it to qualify for an article. You can read more details at Wikipedia:Notability, and other pages linked from there. I have searched and found no coverage at all of Novachi Education System apart from Wikipedia and Novachi's own web site. This strongly encourages me to believe that it does not satisfy the notability guidelines. If this is the case then the answer to "how the page should be written to meet the standards here" will be that it can't. No amount of better writing will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. Unfortunately many people think that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can write about anything on Wikipedia", and very many people come here in the hope of using Wikipedia to publicise their project/company/band/charity/club/etc etc, and waste alot of time, only to end in frustration. It may seem unfriendly to say "don't try to write an article on your pet subject", but in fact if the subject does not satisfy our notability criteria then it is in fact far more friendly than encouraging an inexperienced editor to put time and effort into a project which is doomed to failure. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism report on User:Bandit666

I recently reported User:Bandit666 at WP:AIV. I'm not sure if you were responding to my report with this edit, but if you were, could you please take another look?

This isn't about a content dispute. According to Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism, "discussion page vandalism" is what this user is engaged in. The clear vandalism comes from repeatedly vandalizing the Talk:Damone (band) page ([3] [4] [5] [6]). Note that if you scroll down, my attempts at discussing the article itself were being removed by this user, whose edits mirror the IP blocked for vandalizing with the same edits.

I tried to engage Bandit666 in dialogue at Talk:Damone_(band)#Release_date_of_Roll_the_Dice and Talk:Damone_(band)#Band_members.27_names, only to see those sections repeatedly blanked. My final attempt came at User_talk:Bandit666#You_have_to_respond_for_dialogue_to_take_place. The only response is the same edits to the articles along with vandalizing the talk page again here. I can't go to dispute resolution if the user won't reply and erases my attempts to fix the article. Thanks for your time. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My "content dispute" referred to a report on 121.218.79.162 . I did not even see your report on Bandit666. In fact I doubt that anyone did,a s it was removed immediately by a bot. There is a bug which results in new reports sometimes being removed by this bot if the bot is (correctly) removing another report at just the moment when a new report is filed. Unfortunately I am having to go off line in a minute, but I will have a quick look at your report, and restore it if I don't have time to deal with it, so another admin can see it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It turned out to be such an obvious case of vandalism that it only took a couple of minutes. Blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

PinpointsX Deletion

Dear James,

My name is Rudy Dallal and I'm a VP at PinpointsX LTD. My employee informed me that she tried several times to submit an entry to Wikipedia about our application and patents, but with no success. The reason mentioned was: "‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) ."

I would appreciate it if you could please explain in further detail the problem with the entry, so that we can submit something to Wikipedia that would be acceptable. As a comparable, another company in our industry, Grindr, succeeded to post an entry on Wikipedia. I've looked at their entry, and it seems very similar in format to what we had submitted the first time. We are proud of our company, and its underlying technology. We represent a first in the industry, and would like to have it memorialized on Wikipedia. I would be happy to provide you with more details on the significance of our platform's technology if you think that would be relevant.

Thank you for your help.

Below is the original article submitted

Kind regards,

Rudy Dallal

PinpointsX PinpointsX® is a patent-pending cellular application and a geo-social networking platform, enabling users to locate and interact with other users and businesses on a map of their default or current location. The application is available in the iTunes Store and Android Marketplace. Contents [hide] • 1 Overview • 2 PPX-To-Go • 3 Reviews • 4 References

[edit] Overview PinpointsX® is a software company, focusing on providing members and relevant establishments with advanced technologies and services for matchmaking and dating. The application and platform contain a personal and interactive map, allowing users to filter, prioritize, schedule and interact with sensual resources around them. It provides communication between mobile to mobile, mobile to web, web to mobile, and web to web. PinpointsX® integrates with business establishments such as bars, clubs, hotels, etc. to become resources on the user's personal map. Professionals also seek this technology to provide their services to adults. PinpointsX® offers their patent technology platform as a white-labeled product to be customized by other companies.

History: PinpointsX® was founded by CEO, Ronen Gabbay in February 2010. By April 2010, PinpointsX® launched its website and application. It is currently available only in the U.S.

PPX to-go™ PPX to-go™ is a mobile application for iPhone and Android OS systems and a method for mobile-matchmaking. It uses various dynamic positioning technologies, such as GPS, Wi-Fi, CellID and intuitive positioning. The application enables real-time management, filtering, prioritization, mapping and interaction of and between location-based resources, such as member resources and affiliate resources. Resources in the vicinity of a user are displayed on the mobile application map. Various icons represent the resources displayed on the map and can be selected by the user. Various embodiments provide the ability for a user to survey the activity of a future destination/location to be traveled to and create one or more itineraries for future travel in advance.

References: http://www.pinpointsx.com/About.aspx http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10456304-71.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/pinpointsx-app-helps-you_n_502538.html http://www.askmen.com/top_10/dating/top-5-iphone-pickup-apps_1.html http://www.bettyconfidential.com/ar/ld/a/10-Ways-to-Unleash-Your-Inner-Bad-Girl.html http://www.reginalynn.com/2010/06/10/pinpointsx-and-ppx-to-go-all-sex-aside-the-activity-planning-is-cool http://www.pinpointsx.com/images/press/AmericanCurves.pdf http://www.thrillist.com/mobile-pda/pinpointsx http://www.urbandaddy.com/nyc/gear/9306/PinpointsX_Desires_Mapped_New_York_City_NYC_Application http://www.switched.com/2010/02/20/pinpointsx-iphone-app-puts-nearest-booty-call-on-a-handy-map http://www.69adget.com/pinpointsx-mobile-gps-app http://www.asylum.com/2010/02/09/pinpoints-x-app-casual-sex-prostitutes-hookers-escorts http://www.datingish.com/723955506/would-you-use-your-cellphone-to-find-a-booty-call http://www.xcritic.com/blogs/blog.php?blogID=1893 76.21.152.53 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is clear from your comments above that your purpose is promotion of your company, which is against Wikipedia policy, and that both you and your employee who tried to post the article about your company have a conflict of interest in editing here, which means you are strongly discouraged from doing so. You may if you like look at the guidelines on notability. I do not know whether your product satisfies those guidelines, but nothing I have seen so far encourages me to think so. If it does not then no amount of rewriting of the article will make a non-notable subject notable. Finally, other articles on what you think are similar subjects are irrelevant, both because there may be genuine differences in notability which you haven't noticed, and also for reasons which you will find explained at WP:OTHERSTUFF if you care to look there. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lowcountry High Rollers

Hi there, Would you mind please explaining why my article was deleted. Are we not famous enough basically? Thank you very much for your time.

Zen5328 (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)zen5328

The organisation did not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines. A link to the main guideline and another to the specific guideline for organisations are provided in the notification on your talk page. Have you read those? If you haven't I suggest you do so. If you have read them, and have specific questions as to how they relate to the particular article then let me know, and I'll try to answer them. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Zen5328's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Timberlock - Deleted - Please Reconsider

Hello,

I started work on a Timberlock (Adirondacks Mountains campgrounds in NY) last night at 3:00 AM and worked for two hours - when I saw the speedy delete I followed the rules and posted the holdon sign - I did not delete the delete notice - and I believe we exchanged messages where I asked you to give me a little time to post my research, pictures, etc to demonstrate what would be a purely factual entry about a geographic part of America that is not well known but deserving of a page - I had 7 footnotes to other websites (only one from the Timberlock website) - including entries from the New York Times, Google Maps - plus had linked to other Wikipedia pages whose topics were in my opening paragraphs, and was starting work on the local mountains - I only could stay awake until 5:30 AM and when I woke up, it was deleted. I'd like more than 3 hours to demonstrate the propriety of my page. The article would have been/will be non-promotional - I don't work for Timberlock or have any financial interest in it - but Timberlock is a part of a beautiful, nationally famous mountain range, well known to locals in New York (and visited by people from around the country AND other countries each year) and has 100+ years of Americana history, starting as a logging camp in the 1890s, housing World War II equipment in the 1950s and 1960s, and more- all before becoming a summer campground. If Disney World, Hershey Park, ski resorts, and state parks merit Wikipedia entries (even though they are businesses and may attract customers who read about them on Wikipedia), I don't see why Timberlock is different - so I am writing to respectfully request that you reconsider the deletion and allow me 3 days or so to get all my information up (and learn how to post a few photos) - I am confident you will see it is a factual, well cited, non-advertising page that fits in perfectly with Wikipedia's mission to allow everyone to add new information for other readers' benefit and new learning. Kindly let me know if I may restart a Timberlock page and have a reasonable time to complete the "first draft" before judgment is made. Thank you very much.

-Phil

philchronakis@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.150.93 (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I wasn't signed in when I wrote the above - my username is calvin93. Thanks again.

-Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin93 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the page to User:Calvin93/Timberlock. You can work on it there, and then, if and when it is suitable as an article, it can be moved back. Sorry that you had the unpleasant experience of having it deleted while you were not around. I had left it for what seemed like a significant time, but being in a different time zone gave a different impression. Incidentally, "promotion" applies to any article the main purpose of which appears to be to tell people how great something is, whether or not it is intended as commercial advertising, and whether or not you work for the company. Try to write from a balanced, neutral, point of view, even if your personal view is that Timberlake is wonderful. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

James, thank you, I will retool it and post here when I think it is ready, and will follow your guidelines above - just to make it neutral and factual. Regards, Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin93 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback from Ukguyspriggs

12 August 2010 10:25pm EST

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Ukguyspriggs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukguyspriggs (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 August 2010

Help

Hi, sorry to be a pain, but how do I delete my article? Desktop Scientific?

I have decided to get relevant citations and assistance with writing the article, would rather prefer to do it the right way... cos I was not aware of the the MULTIPLE endless... requirements that WikiPedia wants.

Encylopaedia Britannica have quoted our Electronic Statistics Textbook as The only Internet Resource about Statistics Recommended by Encyclopaedia Britannica. way better than wikipedia anyway... please delete it if you will... —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleAraujo (talk • contribs) 07:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have deleted it for you, since you asked, but I see it has already been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Not sure if you have my talk page watchlisted, but in case you haven't, I've got one more query regarding the matter discussed earlier. No rush though! Paralympiakos (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

kalaikal

How come you deleted kalaikal, it was referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceodefjam (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 August 2010

Have you read the deletion log entry? If you have then you will know why the article was deleted, namely because (1) it was promotional and (2) it was a copyright infringement. Such language as "it is one of the greatest artistic showcases in our community" is about as promotional as it gets, and I find it difficult to imagine that you were not aware of the fact. I wonder whether your remark "it was referenced" means that you are making the surprisingly common mistake of confusing copyright infringement with plagiarism. Saying where you got your material is a defence against a charge of plagiarism, but not against a charge of copyright violation. If I write something then it is my property, and in general you may not use it without my permission. Announcing that you are using my material does not somehow make it alright to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)