User talk:JBW

.

---

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For personal reasons, I am unlikely to be able to edit Wikipedia for a while. I will almost certainly not be touching Wikipedia at least until 22 March, and it is very likely that I will do little or nothing until at least 25 March. Any messages left here may have to wait until then. Apologies to anyone that this inconveniences.

JamesBWatson (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

---

.

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) (I usually don't use watchlisting, because I have found I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for a while it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Bigshowandkane64

Hi James, sorry about the whole copyright thing that I did by mistake. Thank's for letting me know about the whole copyright thing you told me. I won't do it again, sorry about that. I didn't know that there was a copyright thing on wikipedia. And I didn't mean to edit war ether. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry James, it's just that this user Smartie2thaMaxXx keeps on giving me a hard time. He won't leave me alone no matter witch article I go to he follows me and keeps undoing my edits when ever I try to find sources. It just annoying me a little and just yesterday he went to my talk page and called me "His Worst Enemy!" That made me a little upset and it's a not nice thing for him to say. I just want him to apologize to me but he never did. Can you do something abut him, because he won't stop giving me a hard time. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

James, you give massages now?  ;-) Bigshow ... you cannot every force an apology - after all, that would end up being rather hollow apology, wouldn't it. If they're formally hounding you, then ANI is the place to go, but you'll have to prove it's hounding. You're right, being called someone's "worst enemy" stings - after all, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we don't do battlegrounds. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you know, I read that message several times, and couldn't understand what you meant by "James, you give messages now?" it was only long afterwards, when I came back to this page, that I saw what you had really written. Very often we see what we expect to see, not what is there. (Of course, it didn't help that the thing you were referring to had been refactored, so that your comment was completely out of context.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you kind message Bwilkins. By the way James I want to let you know I wasn't really edit warring on the Dan Green (voice actor) article I was showing user Smartie a source that Dan's been acting since 1983. But Smartie doesn't believe me, I don't know why he doesn't like me. I wasn't causing any problems ether I was following the rules like you said and providing sources. But I guess if this is how I'll be blamed by. then I guess I won't edit articles anymore on wikipedia..... =( Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that back. I'm still going to edit wikipedia. I was just gona take a break that's all. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I just want to ask you a quick question. Are you not mad at me? Because can you see I'm trying really really hard on wikipedia and providing sources to articles. User Smartie was giving me a hard time. He follows me were ever article I go to and undos my edits when I was looking for sources. I was trying not to edit war against him, he was edit warring against me and I know it's wrong to edit war it's not right at all. I think it's because he doesn't like me. I think I'm just gona take a little break from editing for a while so I can relax and do..... well I don't know..... something. But whatever I did, I'm sorry. But I hope your not made at me? Peace! Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for your message. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S.S What does provoke mean? I can't remember. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

1. No, I'm not "mad at you" at all. I can see that you are really trying to do the right things, and are sometimes finding it difficult. I am willing to try to help you learn how Wikipedia works if I can. At the same time, though, it is necessary to make sure that you understand what the problems are, so that you can avoid them, and sometimes warning you about problems may seem a bit like being "mad at you".
2. What I meant by "provoke" is that another editor has been doing things that were likely to encourage you to react in unhelpful ways. That means it was not totally your fault when you did things that were not helpful. I think the fault was mainly from the other editor, and that is why I blocked that editor and not you. However, that does not mean that there was no fault at all from you. If that editor, or anyone else, keeps on doing things that might encourage you to act in ways are not helpful, you need to resist the temptation to react. Even when someone else does completely unacceptable things, such as attacking you on your talk page, try to make sure that you still stick to behaving perfectly. Otherwise, you are likely to be blocked again, as well as the other editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, now I understand. And yes I still behave well, I don't and never leave nasty messages on talk pages like what Smartie did on my talk page. Thanks for your kind reply message.

Hi, James. Since you gave Bigshowandkane64 a second chance to edit Wikipedia once again a few days ago, I want to help him learn more about how the encyclopedia works without having him resort to sockpuppetry or edit-warring again and help him learn more about essays, the five pillars, policies and guidelines such as WP:CIVIL and edit warring as well as WP:BRD. I don't want to cause any edit wars (I have even been blocked once for it, but that was back in October 2010) or be uncivil, so I am thinking if we should just offer some helpful tips to the user if we come up with issues. However, if he does resort to sockpuppetry or edit-warring again should the disruption rise again, what would be the best option here? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the answer has to be to restore the block. I have really tried hard to give Bigshowandkane64 every possible chance, as some other editors have, but unfortunately he/she just does not seem able to learn about edit warring. Yes, I gave a second chance, but that chance has not been taken, so I have restored the block which I had lifted. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There's big trouble going on on my talk page: Bigshowandkane64 is using 72.64.3.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to evade his block and post on my talk page. I filed an WP:RFPP on the situation, but can you please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The elevator vandal

He's back. If you're interested, check out the latest entry in User:John of Reading/CSD log. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have deleted the vandalism page and range blocked for a short while. What a weird obsession. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(Yawn) And again. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(Yawn) Deleted & blocked. Interestingly, this is outside the IP ranges used before. Whether that is significant I can't say, but it is possible it may mean that range blocks are forcing the vandal to move around, in which case it is worth continuing with the range blocks, to restrict his/her freedom of movement. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I might be wrong here and then I will let it go. But there are pressure to change the Jacqueline Fernandez birthdate information from 2 June to 11 August and I still havent seen any reliable sources for this change. But users keep changing the information. Is there something you could do or? A full protection for a month so a good discussion could be held or similar. Because her birthdate is 2 June but users are POV pushing like never before now. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion of full protection for a month, and have done that. I hope it gives a chance for the issue to be resolved, but the dispute has been in existence for a long time (nearly two years to my knowledge). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes it has been ongoing for two years. I have not been involved in it for that long but what is problematic is that I have not seen any reliable sources for the 11 August claim. Anyway, hopefully the issue can be resolved within this month. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this possible sockpuppet case if you have the time concerning IP 87.232.1.48 edits at Death of Travis Alexander. I believe that this IP and IPs 134.226.254.178 and 87.232.101.49 are all the same. Also involved are user MaxxFordham. I have a gut feeling atleast two of the IPs has been used by the same user to give impression of consensus at the Travis Alexander article, and the user page MaxxFordham has very possibly been used by IP 87.232.1.48 to create confusion and appearance of consensus. It is a week old or so old discussion but I feel that if sockpuppeting or bad faith edits has been madde by one person then some kind of action is in order. If I am wrong about this I would be surprised. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3],[4] they all uses the same kind of language and tone. IP 87.232.1.48 is the main one being used. Also a fourth already blokced IP seems to be involved [5]--BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems like me informing you about this problem triggered the IP to create yet another account and insulting me and a number of other users and getting its username blocked. [6].--BabbaQ (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi there JBW, AL "here"

User:Boing! said Zebedee, after reading my message to him (found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee), suggested that i contacted you on the situation. What is your intake, if any?

Happy weekend from Portugal, thank you very much in advance --AL (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You say that you are "99,999999% sure" that 186.225.8.138 is User:Bruno corinthiano, aka 177.0.204.119. I am certain that 177.0.204.119 is Bruno corinthiano, but I can't see any clear evidence that 186.225.8.138 is the same person. (Note: I am not saying that it isn't the same person, just that I don't see clear evidence that it is.) There are some similarities, such as an interest in editing articles about footballers, a vaguely similar style of edits, editing from the same geographical area, and a tendency to make pointless changes that will not actually make any visible difference to the article, such as the removal of white space in the infobox in this edit. (That sort of apparently pointless edit could be due to using an offline editor and pasting the text back in.) However, I have not seen any edits that really make me think "Aha! that looks suspicious!" and something much more defintie would be nedessary to justify any action. It is notable that 186.225.8.138 has not edited any page that either 186.225.8.138 or Bruno corinthiano has edited, whereas there are ten articles that 186.225.8.138 and Bruno corinthiano have both edited. However, my impressions are based on a fairly brief investigation, and I may well have missed important evidence, so if you can give me definite reasons for your suspicion, I will be willing to consider it. Diffs for specific edits would be very helpful.

(I shall be visiting Portugal in a week.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Really your report has been quite comprehensive (much more than mine) and i have to add it's just a hunch, i cannot provide other evidence other than they both replace (in box) the U19, U21, U17 national team info with U-19, U-21, U-17. As you very well say, this other guy also edits from Brazil and in football, but they do not edit in same articles.

Not a case to be worried (for now), no vandalism no siree! Ah, happy stay in my country, but brace yourself, even though we have a reputation for sunny weather and we're reaching spring, weather is as poor as can be right now. Keep it up, thanks anyway --AL (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't told me about the weather. however, it's probably better than where I live. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Which is where if you don't mind me asking? --AL (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A village in the Pennines, not far from Manchester, and one of the wettest parts of a wet country. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Juan Sebastián Elcano

Hi. Guetaria, Guipúzcoa, the place where Elcano was born, was part of Castile and Leon in 1476. The Basque Country there was not such as nationality or region. If you require, we removed it from Basque and left it in Castilian. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What is and is not a "nationality" is debatable, but it certainly was an ethnicity. Nothing in the article said that it was a "nationality", as far as I know. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There is much to debate on this issue, but unfortunately my english is too bad. Anyway, thanks for your reply. Greetings, --Bashevis6920 (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi James all the info used is owned and created by me therefore there's no copyright infringement. What do I need to do differently to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intern2Owner (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Are you willing to release your content under Wikipedia's open licensing terms? This will mean giving permission to anyone in the world to re-use it, as it is or amended, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, under very broad terms. If you really are willing to release it under such open licensing terms, then can give you a link to instructions on how to give Wikipedia copyright release, but...
2. ...doing so will almost certainly be a waste of your time, as the content was, as I have already said, purely promotional, and would be deleted again for that reason, even if the copyright issue were dealt with. Any page anywhere on Wikipedia which seems to exist to tell us how great or wonderful someone or something is will be likely to be deleted.
3. Before you spend any more time on this at all, I strongly recommend that you first consider whether the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, because if he doesn't, then no amount of rewriting the page will make it suitable as a Wikipedia article. This may seem unfriendly, but I am actually taking the trouble to say all this to help you. Time and time again over the years I have seen new editors create an article, see it deleted as a copyright infringement, rewrite it to avoid that, see it deleted as promotion, rewrite it to avoid that, see it deleted as non-notable... I really hate seeing that happen, and the reason why I am spending several minutes writing all this, instead of a few seconds pasting a standard message here, is to try to save you from going through all that waste of time and effort. My impression is that the subject probably does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but that impression is based on a fairly quick look, so I may be wrong. The guidelines that are relevant in this case are Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability (music) Please do look at those pages to see what sort of thing is required. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of page 'Waterford Institute of Technology Students' Union'

You deleted the page entitled Waterford Institute of Technology Students' Union which was is about the students' union in Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland. i created the page to outline the history of the students' union and its active involvement at local and national levels in the protection of students and raising money for well deserving charities as well as its involvement with the Union of Students in Ireland. it was a 'work in progress' prior to deletion. i would like to have it undeleted. 20046117 23:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please put my page back? 20046117 00:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Fennessy (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have "userfied" the article. I will post further details on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets of Tom Sayle

I've requested deletion of that category because I'm currently using this account, and there won't be any more in future.--Launchballer 09:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That is good news. However, if that is so then there is no harm in leaving the page there, and if not then there is an advantage in keeping it. In neither case is anything to be gained by deleting the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism Help!

Hi JamesBWatson!

You helped me before. I am dealing with vandalism from a user called Paperroses. He created this account and then proceeded to make 7 edits over the following pages: Witness Lee, Watchman Nee, and Living Stream Ministry. Each of these edits were obvious acts of vandalism consisting of him complaining of something. I want to add a level 3 warning to his page but it looks like he created his account just to vandalize. I have some feeling that this may be an instance of sockpuppeting. What should I do? Can you please help me through this? Thanks.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

The edits are certainly unacceptable, being unsourced expressions of a point of view, but it is not obvious to me that it is vandalism As far as I can see, it may well be simply someone who sincerely believes that he or she is writing the truth, and is unaware of Wikipedia's policies on sources and neutral point of view. As for sockpuppetry, do you have any evidence? If you do, let me know what the evidence is, and I will let you know what I think. However, it's not possible to do anything on the basis of "some feeling" without evidence. The editor has not edited since being warned, and I think at present the best thing to do is to wait and see. However, please feel very welcome to contact me again if the problematic editing starts up again. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As for vandalism, this user put phrases like "go and be a catholic" (in a random spot) or "unless your name is alan" (context was a theological school being set up for college graduates but, according to this user, you could not attend if your name was Alan). And his more substantial edits do not match the context of where he put them at all, have no proper capitalization or grammar, and consist of him or her ranting about gossiping and trying to directly talk to the readers of the articles . This user's edits sounds like angry commentary. If this does not constitute vandalism than what does (and I have read the vandalism information page and tried to follow the steps for responding to vandalism)? [This question is for my learning, please do not get the impression that I am arguing with you or angry, I am not. Although, truthfully, I am a bit frustrated that someone would do something like this.]

Secondly, and this is for a more general case, if someone adds something to any page saying things like this user did (expressions of anger or talking about bad experiences with something), and did find some sort of unreliable citation (e.g. a blog, a source that is no longer up-to-date, a personal website, etc.) is that grounds for that edit to remain? If I found "authortitative" sources, would that be grounds for removing something that is "incorrect?" And I guess this is a tricky question when it comes to religous pages since it can be quite subjective sometimes.

Thanks again, Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

1. Yes, I did see the nonsense about "but if your name is alan you cant" and so on, but by the time I had finished checking all the edits, I forgot that. Thanks for correcting me. It does throw a completely different light on the user's purpose here.
2. You ask "if someone adds something to any page saying things like this user did (expressions of anger or talking about bad experiences with something), and did find some sort of unreliable citation (e.g. a blog, a source that is no longer up-to-date, a personal website, etc.) is that grounds for that edit to remain?". The answer is "No". You ask "If I found authortitative sources, would that be grounds for removing something that is incorrect?". The answers is "Yes". Just any source is not good enough: it has to be a reliable source, and blogs, personal websites, etc are not reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
3. I will post a level 2 vandalism warning to the user, but after that, I still think we should wait and see if he/she does any more: for now, a couple of warnings are all that are needed. However, in view of the "but if your name is alan you cant" nonsense, it will take only a little bit more vandalism before I decide that a block is justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm glad that I asked you before I went ahead and did something rash. I guess I was upset that someone would treat Wikipedia like a forum and put whatever he wanted to say on it. I'll keep watching and I'll let you know if anything else happens. Thanks again!

Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Hi JamesBWatson,

Thanks for the correction. I thought that was what you meant! Thanks again. And do you think you could help with the incorrectly moved page?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

What incorrectly moved page? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson!

The page is Recovery Version. It's about a particular translation of the Bible my friend and I like. It used to be on the page Recovery Version of the Bible but we noticed that all the other Bible translation pages were titled "King James Version," "English Standard Version," etc. So we wanted to make the title consistent (getting rid of "of the Bible") but I noticed recently that he just copied and pasted the content over to a different page. After I continued to work on the page more I noticed that my comment was the only one on the talk page and that the history was not complete. Can you somehow move the history from Recovery Version of the Bible to Recovery Version?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Sorry, it turns out that I was the one who just copied and pasted the page over. I don't even remember doing that or why I didn't use the "move" function. Sorry. Can you still help me move it properly?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

I can easily move the history of Recovery Version of the Bible to Recovery Version, but I am reluctant to do so unless there is evidence that there is a clear consensus to do so. The translation of the bible authorised for use by King James VI/I is very widely known, and commonly referred to by titles such as "the authorised version", without mention of what it is the authorised version of. The "Recovery Version" of the bible, by contrast, is much less well known (I had never heard of it until I read your post here. A quick internet search suggests that use of the "Recovery Version" in its own, without context saying what it is a version of, occurs rarely if at all. Most commonly some mention of the bible is included, as in "The Holy Bible Recovery Version", "Holy Bible Recovery Version", "the Recovery Version Bible" etc. In the few cases I have seen where plain "Recovery Version" occurs, it is either in a context in which it is already clear that versions of the bible are under consideration, or else in a place where the expression is pretty well immediately followed by a clarification using the word "bible". I also found a picture of the front cover of the book, in which the title is given as "Holy Bible Recovery Version", so "Recovery Version" on its own does not even have the merit of being the "official" title. Under these circumstances, I don't really see the proposed move as being consistent with Wikipedia's naming practises, and unless there is clear evidence that the issue has been discussed and consensus is in favour of the move, I don't see it as justifiable. (Incidentally, I found some interesting information about the people who produced this translation. For example, "Footnotes from the Book of Revelation state that denominational groups are spiritual fornicators for taking on names other than that of Christ (Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc), that Christianity is degraded for taking on these denominational names, that denominational groups are the harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon, and that Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Judaism have become an organization used by Satan as a tool to damage God's economy...") JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson!

Firstly, I see your point about the title. But I figured that if someone were to search for the Recovery Version they would just search "Recovery Version" and that would lead them to the Bible. Strangely, when I search "recovery version" in Google and Yahoo all I get is the Recovery Version Bible, nothing less. Even Ask.com gets me just about all Recover Version Bible. I wonder if the country we are in makes a difference (assuming we may be in different countries)? I do see your point though. So what do you think is the best move? Should I ask on the talk page and see if anyone responds?

Secondly, the statement you showed is composed of different parts of unrelated footnotes from the Recovery Version that were reworded and then joined together. It does not even closely approximate the attitude and thought of the people who made the Recovery Version or the content of the Recovery Version itself. In fact, it is the opposite. The reason I know this is because there was a huge controversy surrounding those who produced the Recovery Version in the United States and many statements, like the one you found or others that claimed the group was cultic, heretical, aberrant, deviant, etc., came out. However, organizations like the Christian Research Institute (CRI), Fuller Theological Seminary, and ‘’Christianity Today’’(and even law courts) completed extensive research and all concluded that these statements, such as the one you found, were distortions of what the group really said. In fact, these organizations were so impressed with those who made the Recovery Version, they not only approved but highly praised the group. The problem is that a lot of inaccurate statements like the one you found were never removed or changed and come up first on search pages. In case you’re interested, an outcome of the controversy was an issue of ‘’The Christian Research Journal’’ entitled ‘’We Were Wrong’’ by CRI and does a good job of giving the whole story of the controversy.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Well, this all goes to show how you can't rely on information just because it's posted somewhere on the internet. Thanks for giving me more information about it. As for the move of the article, I am still doubtful, but I don't really have strong feelings about it, and so I will move it. However, if there are objections from other editors I may well move it back pending discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson!

Thanks for the help. I will let you know if some editors feel like the article should be moved back. My main concern was just to make all the titles of the Bible articles consistent. And in case you read the Bible, I highly recommend the Recovery Version. Depending on which country you live in, you can get a free copy of the New Testament with no strings attached like I did (e.g. from Bibles for Canada, Bibles for America, etc.). It's very well done. I look forward to working with you in the future. Thanks again!

Sosthenes12 (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Stop Vandalising Pages

Please stop vandalising pages of Churches in Singapore. This is a warning! There is no basis for nominating them for deletion. They exist, and even if you deleted them, they can be added back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

NENCGuy

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

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

OK. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirect of 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix to 2013 Formula One season

this redirection is completely false... 2013 Formula One season is not the same as 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix (and the interwikis are false too...) Cobra bubbles (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You probably got a bunch of these but one more shouldn't hurt. Thanks for helping me out! Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved Page Wrong

Hi JamesBWatson!

I hope it's ok for me to ask you another question. I noticed that a page my friend and I had worked on was moved incorrectly. We were collaborating and wanted to make the title more consistent with other, related pages on Wikipedia. But I checked just now and I think he just copied and pasted the information from one page to the other. Is is possible for you to move the page to the new title the correct way? Or should I just leave it the way it is?

Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

mafia state

since you have accepted the mafia state edit as non vandalism, can you please help me remove the putin photo in the article since i cannot do it myself because you protected the page, the putin photo is irrelvant because the article is also about other contries government like montenegro kosovo italy and japan 90.236.167.119 (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The photograph of Putin is certainly relevant, because he is mentioned prominently in the article. The fact that other countries are mentioned too may perhaps be grounds for adding other photographs, too. However, all I have done is protect the article to prevent disruptive editing, and I have no intention of getting involved in disputes about the content of the article. If you believe there are good reasons for the change you suggest, then you may place {{edit semi-protected}}, followed by your request, on the article's talk page. You may do this when your block runs out, not before. Since you have been avoiding that block by using different IP addresses, the length of that block has been increased, and it is now due to end at 14 Mar 2013 21:05 GMT. To make this absolutely clear: if you have been blocked then you may not edit, except to request an unblock, until the block expires or is lifted by an administrator. Evading the block by using another IP address is unacceptable. I will block the IP address you used to post here for the same amount of time as the other one, and you may request an unblock on the IP talk page, if you think an unblock is justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of my page Jilla

Why you have deleted the page Jilla ? It was the page for an upcoming Tamil film which had its Official launch on March 11th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalkrishna333 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific? Without knowing what you want to know that you haven't already been told on your talk page, it is difficult for me to answer. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Viking/Vikings

Hello, on 14 February 2013 you made this edit which moved Viking to Vikings. I completely agree with the move; however, the talk page was not included in the move, so clicking the "Talk" link on Vikings takes one to Talk:Viking. Can you please correct this? Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing this out. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Antony1821

Hi there JB,

regarding the message you sent to this "user" (please see here at the bottom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grandstyle), this guy is this no good lowlife sock, who promised to sock and sock over and over again if he was blocked, he does so anon and now with an account. I kind of lost it in my message to this "person", i apologize but he's doing this with a smile!

You have been briefed, cheers --AL (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reminding me, just had to go offline for a few hours. see you tonight...... babes....

Mailsite article - follow up

Hello James. Thank you for your feedback on the new article I have created (Mailsite). You have expressed some concerns that as the author and major editor of this article, there may be a conflict of interest and a compromise of Wikipedia's authorship guidelines. I would like to respond by stating that my reason for writing this article was to share some of the research that I have done regarding mail servers. In the early part of my research, I used Wikipedia to gather information about various companies and mail server products. Realizing that there was a lack of coverage of Mailsite, I began the task of writing and publishing this article. I have made several edits to other mail server articles, to further contribute to the Wikipedia content community. I have no conflict of interest, nor affiliated with Mailsite. Some of the information I have presented in this article are value-added and not available in the same information flow on Mailsite's website. I greatly appreciate your consideration and ask that the article remain anchored to the Wikipedia content community. This content is consistent with other mail server companies/services that exist in Wikipedia. I am a relatively new author to Wikipedia, and very excited to be participating in the contribution process. Please allow me to add useful content to the Mailsite page so it can grow and continue to inform the community of readers. I also have plans to publish several additional articles on this subject domain. Thank you. Dargyle (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for all of your help and expertise. I really appreciate that there are administrators like you working on Wikipedia. Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Dewritech's talk page.
Message added 08:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dewritech (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Note

Hope everything is ok! Good luck to whatever you are doing! Sosthenes12 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

.

---

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For personal reasons, I am unlikely to be able to edit Wikipedia for a while. I will almost certainly not be touching Wikipedia at least until 22 March, and it is very likely that I will do little or nothing until at least 25 March. Any messages left here may have to wait until then. Apologies to anyone that this inconveniences.

JamesBWatson (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

---

.

Hi

Sorry to bother you, but could you take a look at user Xfansd edits on Yohio and other simlar topics. The user has been told again and again by me and other users not to change information about visual kei especially in the Yohio article. The user continues to POV push and also changes categories to make it appear like Yohio is cross dressing which is not correct. I have tried to convince the user to get involved in discussing the issue and get a consensus before adding this material but the user continues to add it back. And states that "I will do it anyway" basically. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello JamesBWatson, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo 15:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ferguson

Hi, having a similar problem as with the Louise Camuto article..this time it is Rebecca Ferguson (actress) article and a representative of Rebecca that wants to change the article. I find it troubling. The username is Aisassistant. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion of Tuxera Page

Hi, a week ago you have proposed Tuxera page for deletion due to promotional content. I wanted to ask if it is possible for you to revert to the previous text and we will add new information step by step? The content was outdated and we wanted to refresh it. Unfortunately we did not know the rules and have not seen any warnings. We are very sorry about it would like to have an opportunity to make amends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.136.68.98 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)