User talk:JamesBWatson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


User talk


  • If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and let me know, by pinging me there, or if you prefer by dropping a note on this page. (I make scarcely any use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise 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 ping you to let you know.
  • 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 week 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.

Deletion of Fernando Luis Alvarez Gallery[edit]

Hey User:JamesBWatson, I see that you have deleted the page that I created for the Fernando Luis Alvarez gallery under sections G11 and G12 of speedy deletion, but I was wondering exactly what parts you saw as promotional. Please let me know and I would be happy to take them out. The article is by no means meant to be bias or promotional so if you could let me know what needs to be edited in order to make it neutral, that would be great. Would you mind clarifying which part caused you to delete the article under section G12? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicitycain (talkcontribs) 18:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Felicitycain: You say that I deleted an article that you created. I deleted an article of that title more than four years ago, and the article was created by an editor using an account called "Flagallery". Was that you? As for telling you "what parts [I] saw as promotional", it wasn't a question of "parts" that were promotional: the whole thing, from start to finish, read as though it was written by a PR agent, and it was full of such marketing-speak as "Alvarez and his lips are swiftly becoming a significant player in the main stage of contemporary art" and so on and so on... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: Interesting to know, but that user was not me, and I'm surprised someone tried to make a page about the gallery back then since it's only been around for 5 years. Also, the quote you just mentioned about Alvarez and his lips is not featured anywhere on the wikipedia page. All of the content is just factual, so I'm not entirely sure the best way to change it so that it's not deemed promotional. If you'd like to give advice, it would be appreciated because the majority of the page is really just factual information Felicitycain (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Felicitycain: The article you have written is nothing like the one I deleted. The draft you have now is not particularly promotional, in my opinion, and I personally wouldn't speedily delete it as promotion. You were right to omit the mention of "mission" which you had before, as it really looks like an announcement that the article is presenting us with the view of the gallery that the gallery wants to present, rather than a neutral outsider's view. I would remove the word "important" too: what is important is a matter of opinion, and it is a word which is much loved by people who write things like sales catalogues for galleries, and rather makes it seem as though the article is trying to impress us with how the gallery has "important" connections. I would say, however, that with your draft article, the big question is not promotion, but notability. If you have not done so already, have a look at the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Neither your draft article nor what I have been able to find from my (admittedly brief) internet searches persuade me that the gallery satisfies those guidelines. You may be able to produce evidence that it does, but bear in mind that if you can't, then any work you put into the draft is likely to be wasted, as it is unlikely to survive long as an article. A promotional article can be made non-promotional by editing, but no amount of editing an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. I don't know whether you are only interested in writing about the Fernando Luis Alvarez Gallery, or whether you would like to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways, but if you are interested in contributing on other subjects, my advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: Thank for you information on notability, perhaps I'll try writing again when the gallery becomes a little more well known. Just out of curiosity (and this is in no way meant to sound rude), did you mistake the first draft for that old article you deleted? Because the only change I've made from when you deleted the article a few hours ago and when you said that this draft was entirely different was removing the mission statement and changing around about 3 words. Felicitycain (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Felicitycain: I rather think you have misunderstood the information in the deletion log. You refer to "when [I] deleted the article a few hours ago", but I didn't delete anything a few hours ago. Until you posted your first message here, I had never even known of the existence of your article, let alone deleted it, or done anything else to it. The deletion log, which you can see here, has two entries, for two different articles with the same title. First, it says "18:02, 21 July 2015 NawlinWiki ... deleted page Fernando Luis Alvarez Gallery (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)"; then, it says "19:44, 31 March 2011 JamesBWatson... deleted page Fernando Luis Alvarez Gallery (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://flalvarezgallery.com/flag/fernando-luis-alvarez/)". That is to say, I deleted the original article in 2011, and that was my only involvement with it until you posted here. I said that your draft was entirely different from the article which I deleted, that is to say the old one from 2011, not that it was entirely different from your first version of the article, which NawlinWiki deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock request[edit]

Got another set for you: 98.90.88.13, 98.90.88.187, 98.90.89,206, 98.90.89.30, 98.90.88.42, etc. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: OK, I've blocked a range covering all those for six months. What kind of weird mind must anyone have, to put so much time and effort into something so totally pointless? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I did not know this one was still around since they had not popped up on my watchlist for the last few months. My thanks to you Skywatcher68 for tracking those disprutive edits and to you JamesBWatson for dealing with them. MarnetteD|Talk 20:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


You want weird? Check out this guy pretending to be Andrew Bolt! http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/nest/246121894Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: Yes. Interesting. However, I think it's a pity that the others participants in the discussion did so much feeding of the troll. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Zurich00swiss[edit]

Good morning I'm zurich00swiss, a stupid and naive user, a user who has done something that is like destroying his dream: flying. I'm really young and I know I made a mistake, I know that you aren't probably interested in what I'm writing because I'll probably remain blocked. I created many sockpuppets because I wanted to continue editing my favourite airports, airlines but specially my dreams. I'm apologize for everything I've done; I want to became a pilot in Swiss International air Lines, this is the reason of my nicknames... If you give me the last chance I will surely be better, if I could go back to the past I'd never made this mistake, this stupid mistake of being a person without a hart with a part of my life! Without Wikipedia I'm empty, so I would like to ask you to give me the last chance. Best regards. THANK YOU ZURICH00SWISS.

P.S. I decided to excuse me alter talking about this with my dad, so he also tried to help me with the tramslation —  Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.29.154.74 (talkcontribs) 07:30, 22 July 2015‎

Answered on the talk page of your account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JamesBWatson thank You very much for unblocking me, I won't disappoint you. in addiction, I want to tell you that I'm going to edit an article just edited by Wjkxy, because he let me finish the work, but please don't think that we are the same person :) —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurich00swiss (talkcontribs) 08:20, 24 July 2015‎

@Zurich00swiss: That's all right, I really don't think you are the same person. I hope you can now get on with useful editing, without any more problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

JReport page deletion[edit]

Hello.

I would like to know why you have deleted the page JReport which has been on wiki for 8 years without any discussion. This was a page about JReport, a software with unique and copyrighted technology. This does not fit in A7 as it is not an article about a website or a blog. JReport is a software produced by Jinfonet Software Inc, a medium sized business with a physical location. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by FromLeIntenetz (talkcontribs) 14:19, 22 July 2015

@FromLeIntenetz: How long the article had existed, the fact that its subject has unique technology, and the facts that the business is medium sized and has "a physical location" are irrelevant. However, you are right in pointing out that the subject does not qualify for speedy deletion criterion A7, and for that reason the deletion was a slip, and I shall restore the article. Thanks for drawing my attention to that mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

And thank you for blocking Masonhenry. Not that it was a major concern but I just got that feeling that it was one of multiple accounts. I was sure it was from a certian user but guess I was wrong :) --BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: Yes. I have no doubt that it's a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, but it is not 100% clear which blocked editor. However, it that doesn't matter: sockpuppet of somebody is enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Blueprint Magazine[edit]

Not that it constitutes definitive proof, but these [1][2][3] seem to suggest the company is a fraud, and the user is just using Wikipedia for free advertising. --Drm310 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Drm310: Yes. I saw two of those three, plus similar things on another site. Probably not a reliable enough source to put in a Wikipedia article, but certainly enough to raise doubts in one's mind. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Rizky[edit]

A sockmaster you have blocked in Rizky Iconia (talk · contribs) could be back. I just noticed Ah. Rizky (talk · contribs). Could you please take a look?

Could be same as Rezart Taçi (talk · contribs) blocked for adding logos on 20 July (One day before creation of Ah. Rizky). See this ANI report where it is suspected Taci actually is Rizky Iconia. Qed237 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: Obvious sockpuppets. Both now blocked indefinitely. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Goose-editing IP sock creates new user account[edit]

Hi, the IP who has been editing goose articles with "Javad Ramezani" has now started to edit blue-winged goose and other articles with the new user account user:Goramk. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

CCP Contact Probe Co., Ltd[edit]

You are, of course, quite right in pointing out the policy within which a user may incorporate a company or organization name within their username. Given that this user is a self-stated single purpose account, albeit not a harmful one, and as the editor (who may be illegally multiple) obviously had little clue as to correct procedure, I was trying to make username selection more straightforward for him, as I could forsee a series of unacceptable names in the pipeline. Perhaps I was wrong; certainly I was in terms of precise statement of policy. His latest suggestion is, of course, good.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: I fully understand your point, but I strongly feel that the common practice of persuading an editor with a name which announces their COI to replace it with one which hides their COI is totally unhelpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair point; I would not dream of arguing with, especially as I recognize that you are right! But I have seen occasions when a perfectly good article, written by an editor with a declared interest, has been flagged for deletion for conflict of interest for no other apparent reason that the aforesaid declaration; and no, I cannot now provide diffs.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Anthony Bradbury: Yes, I have seen that too, and no, I can't provide diffs either. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Davey Asprey[edit]

Hey there,

I was having a discussion with the creator of the page here when this was deleted. It seems like he was making a good-faith effort, and although there was a potential COI, in my personal opinion, there was substantial content as I read it that was not reading as an advert or overly promotional.

Thanks! -| Naypta opened his mouth at 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, your idea of what is "overly promotional" is different from mine. An article full of such language as "pushed Daveys' sound to a wider audience and has garnered an intense following of trance fans around the world", "and tipped as one to watch by the likes", "music regularly graces the decks and airwaves", "some of the finest talent within the scene", and so on reads to me as pretty promotional. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if what I said was confusing. I accept that some of the article was written promotionally, however WP:G11 states that the article has to be essentially unsalvageable before it can be CSD'd with a G11. That is what I dispute - there were plenty of references. The article has been recreated, and it looks to me like most of the POV issues are resolved. | Naypta opened his mouth at 15:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I am trying my very best to get the hang of this posting on wiki, but how can anybody stand a chance who is not as tech savy as you all appear to be when without warning posts, which are near identical to others that are freely allowed to be posted, get deleted? Remove from the article what is offending or breaching policy, and I will re-work the post to fit the guidelines. I cannot see how i can be any fairer than that.We are all made of stardust. (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Daveyasprey: It is natural for a newcomer to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable. Unfortunately, though, it is not a reliable guide, as many unsuitable articles are created, and while a large proportion of them are deleted very soon, many more stay for a long time before being noticed and deleted. I wouldn't like to guess how many times over the years I have seen a new editor whose article is being considered for deletion say "but what about such and such an article and such and such an article" only to receive the answer "Yes, you are right. Thanks for pointing them out. I have nominated them for deletion". I don't know what other articles you have in mind, so I can't say whether that applies to them, or whether in fact there are significant differences from the article you have created, such as satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines and not being written in a promotional way, but what I can say is that they are irrelevant to the issue of whether your article is suitable: it will be assessed on its own merits. You say that you "will re-work the post to fit the guidelines". Some problems, such as the marketing-speak in which much of early version of the article were written, can easily be edited out. However, no amount of editing an article can change the notability of the subject of the article, and I really think it is only fair to tell you that I have searched extensively, and everything that I have seen suggests that Davey Asprey does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You are welcome to prove me wrong if you can, but if he doesn't, then any work you put into the article is likely to be wasted, as it will almost certainly be deleted. If your only purpose in editing here is to publicise Davey Asprey, then really really I think your best bet is to put your efforts into doing so somewhere other than Wikipedia. That may seem like an unfriendly thing to say, but it is honestly said because I have seen many people in your situation put a lot of time and effort into something which was doomed to failure from the start, and I think it is actually more friendly to warn you of that, rather than encouraging you to do the same. If, on the other hand, you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia in other ways, then you are certainly very welcome to do so. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.
There is also another important fact which you need to know about. Since your user name is Daveyasprey, I assumed that you were Davey Asprey, but I now see that you have made statements which indicate that you are not him. Your username is therefore likely to mislead people (as it misled me), and such a misleading username is contrary to Wikipedia's username policy. You therefore must not continue to edit using that username. You should instead apply for a change of username. Information about doing so is at Wikipedia:Changing username, and normally the place to actually make the request is Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


Daveyasprey

User:JacksonViking[edit]

Hi. Just wanted to let you know my old buddy Jackson is at it again. The last two entries in his talk page reference edits that it would have been reasonable to give an "only" warning for unreferenced defamation. As I said at his most recent visit to ANI, I'm not sure whether it's CIR or NOT HERE, but this boy has wasted enough of all our time. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Handy (company) deletion[edit]

Hi JamesBWatson! I see you have delete article about Handy the company for G5, A7, and G11. I can't speak about G5 and G11 because I have no idea who that user is or what the page looked liked, but I can talk about A7. This article says that Handy has 10,000 contractors on its platform compared to Homejoys 1,000. If Homejoy is considered significant enough, then its bigger and still living competitor should be as well.

Because of its significance, I believe Handy article should be undeleted. The article itself, if it blatant advertising, should be fixed. I can do the fixing. Eladamry (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You are perfectly welcome to write a new article on the subject. However, my experience indicates that any person who is willing to keep on creating new accounts to evade blocks will just continue to do so as long as he or she finds that what he or she posts to Wikipedia has a good chance of staying, whereas if he or she finds that anything posted by sockpuppets will be deleted 'and stay deleted, then there is a good chance that eventually he or she will give up. I am therefore unwilling to undelete the article. I do realise that writing a new article from scratch will take a bit more work than cleaning up the old one, but if it prevents a persistent disruptive editor from seeing that his/her article eventually got accepted, I think that is just a price will have to be paid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! When I have some time to put in the proper amount of work I will create one and do it right. Handy was known as Handybook before they rebranded and it looks like that article was suffering from the same problems back in 2014. Eladamry (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The deletion of kunlun fight company page[edit]

would you please explain why it got deleted, thank you

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KunLun fight —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Azzabi21 (talkcontribs) 08:52, 27 July 2015‎

The discussion which led to the deletion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KunLun fight. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback....[edit]

Dear James,

Thank you so much for your feedback regarding the Wikipedia page I was working on as well as your suggestions moving forward. They were thoughtful and they all made sense. Really appreciate it.

The earlier draft was certainly not meant to be "promotional" but I do understand your comments about the overall tone appearing so. It seems that the more "neutral" draft was less problematic, and that was the one I intended to keep on the user page in hopes of satisfying wikipedia's requirements in that area.

Many thanks too for your honest comments regarding the notability guidelines. Of course, I submitted this article because I believed Charles Bonnett's innovative surgical career and real estate career to be notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. However, the need to cite sources makes perfect sense and is a very fair request. I will add the appropriate sources and submit it for consideration again--certainly understanding there is no guarantee of inclusion. But I do appreciate your candor and expert opinion based upon your experience as an editor.

Lastly, thanks too for the tip regarding making small edits on other articles. This seems like a great piece of advice to better understand the way Wikipedia works.

Again, I really appreciate all the time you too to send me such a helpful response. Thanks again.

My Best, David Joseph —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsj1408 (talkcontribs) 01:01, 28 July 2015‎

OK. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sir James[edit]

I want to discus with you on a topic and i am a new user on wikipedia. I am a video Director and Editor in Punjab, India. There is a page of Gippy Grewal and diljit dosanjh, (Punjabi singers) But why not the page of Director Gifty and other directors, who make their status in public. If i am want to create a page on my own Direction then why there is Bugs,errors. Why its not completing. So respected sir, if i am want to create a page on myself then please tell me how to edit it. I am very thankful to you if u give reply on it. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourav08saini (talkcontribs) 13:58, 28 July 2015‎

Wikipedia is not a medium for people to tell the world about themselves and their work: that is what your own web site is for, if you have one. If and when your work receives enough attention to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, no doubt some uninvolved impartial person will write an article about it for Wikipedia. You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia on subjects unrelated to your own work if you would like to, but as has already been explained to you on your talk page, creating articles about subjects such as yourself, your work, your company, and so on, is not in line with Wikipedia's accepted practices. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir James[edit]

Yesterday, I tried to create a page for the [New York Singing Teachers Association (NYSTA)]], which you deleted. I thought I had followed the rules of objectivity according to Wikipedia. I paraphrased, and it certainly wasn't a promotional page. If the National Association of Teachers of Singing and American Choral Directors Association has a Wikipedia page, there should certainly be one for NYSTA as well. There is no difference. Also, many other articles (Oren Brown, Enrico Caruso), could be linked to the page. Can you please explain why this article was deleted and how a successful one might be written? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebra95 (talkcontribs) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You say "it certainly wasn't a promotional page". Certainly by the time of the last version of the article you had toned it down, and removed some of the most blatantly promotional content, but the focus of the article was still on presenting to the readers of Wikipedia the view of the organisation which it wishes to present to the world, including such language as "provide voice professionals, both locally and globally, with the tools and inspiration needed for an increasingly informed and creative pedagogy", "By making these resources accessible to our members, we foster twenty-first-century pedagogy, rooted in the great traditions of the past, incorporating the new knowledge of our time", "encourage the highest standards of musicianship and artistic singing", and so on and so on... No amount of putting quotation marks round the text you post, and prefixing it with such words as "According to its website" or "NYSTA has adopted a mission statement..." in any way diminishes the fact that that sort of stuff is the view of the organisation which you were trying to present to the readers of the article you wrote. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Googolplexian[edit]

Before you closed that RFD, I was going to object to the fact that it was a protected redirect. Seeing as the "dispute" on that redirect happened back in 2006, could you unprotect it? I really don't think that protection is necessary anymore. Thanks. -- Tavix (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix: Yes check.svg Done. So obvious, that I can't think why I didn't think of it. Thanks for pointing it out. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I appreciate it. Now I can add the relevant WP:RCATs. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)