User talk:JBW/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JBW. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Hi you have just deleted the youth search and rescue wiki. I have just found a link that verifies the organisation The site is not made to use urls very early so i cannot link url very well. http://www.societies.govt.nz/pls/web/dbsiframe.show_report_on_browser?p_access_no=93DB3C1EC12F8B8C95B15AF2950449B5&p_report_name=msrcert2_i.rdf&p_parent_window_url=DBSCONT.control_tabs%3Fan%3D93DB3C1EC12F8B8C95B15AF2950449B5%26cn%3D1864342%26tab%3DAL&p_reference_number=1864342&p_report_parm_string=p_reference_number=1864342~p_letter_code=L025

If the link fails please go to this site

http://www.societies.govt.nz/cms/homepage/banner_template/SOCAGENT

then to Register Search

and search for "1864342" in Standard Search

This proves the organisation is legitimate. I will also rework the links as i did not know that that counted as advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommot00 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the organisation is legitimate". If you mean that it really exists, nobody has questioned that. The links you have provided confirm that the organisation exists and is a registered charitable trust, but they do nothing to address any of the three reasons for deletion (explained on your talk page), so I don't understand the point of providing them (unless, of course, you haven't read the message I took the trouble of writing on your talk page). Nor does it address the conflict of interest issue, also explained on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I declined your checkuser request simply because I don't see any additional proof of secondary accounts other than the duck one. If there is evidence that I have missed, feel free to query my talkpage with some diffs and I will get a CU to look into it. Thanks for your understanding. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the page. But, I started a SPI.. Can I continue even if both the users are blocked? Novice7 | Talk 11:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Can you?" Yes, certainly. "Is there any point in doing so?" I'm not sure. It is just possible that someone may find yet more sockpuppets, so perhaps it is worth trying. In cases like this I tend to think "if in doubt go ahead, just in case it turns out to be useful". JamesBWatson (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I already started an investigation, but it was closed. Maybe I'll have to wait for some more puppets. Thanks for the advice... Novice7 | Talk 03:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again! A new user has come up MBBSINPAKISTAN (talk · contribs). Same website as before, a possible puppet. Can you tell me how to proceed with the Sockpuppet investigation? Novice7 | Talk 12:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a sockpuppet investigation, as I have blocked the account as a spam-only account. Thanks for pointing this out to me, and do let me know of any more that you see. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. Yes, I'll surely keep an eye out for the user(s). Novice7 | Talk 12:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at my talk. Novice7 | Talk 12:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to vandalize the page but Lefteris Pantazis is NOT gay. Remove it because it's slander.(Ny proof reader (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

I have removed him from the category, as the claim is unsourced, though I do not regard it as slander. For future reference, though, the way to remove an article form a category is to edit the article, not the category page. If you edit the article you will find a link looking something like [[Category:LGBT people from Greece]], and you need to remove that. Removing content from the category page merely removes information about the category, and does not remove any articles from that category. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are a multitude of court judgemnents, from just about every corner of the world, where it has been determined that it is slanderous to label someone as a homosexual if that would make society in general have a detrimental opinion of him/her. What I can't say is how old those judgements are, whether or not several or many exist from the latest decade, and what type of society this person lives in. What amount of hypocrisy is involved in the professed acceptance of the majority of any society of homosexuality, is another question. Hypocrisy clouds the issue in a manner that makes it practically impossible to be determinative about it. There is nothing in the history of the universe that has been lied about as much as human sexuality. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The only comment I mace relating to this is "I do not regard it as slander". I made no comment on general social attitudes. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have given this user some feedback but I do not disagree with your speedy. They did the right thing by taking the article to userspace rather than re-posting so I wanted to at least give them some positive criticism for making the effort. Cheers, Fæ (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pardon, still getting the hang of the requirements and appropriate formatting. In the process of revising the main wiki article (not the userspace version), it had been deleted. What i'd like to do, instead of revise on wiki (and have everyone become apprehensive before it's finished), is simply work on the article independently, and then submit it to you directly once it's finished (for a guidelines check). Would this be possible? If so, how can I reach you on that occasion? We can remove my userspace page in the mean time. I see my timing could have been better before presenting the writing.

Moreover, the regular wiki entry has been removed. The feedback I was getting from Fae, among others, applies to that text. Would it be possible to send me what I had been compiling, so that i can paste it into Word, and work privately? You can paste it below, if you'd like. DJMIXX305 (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you wrote "We can remove my userspace page in the mean time, I have restored the contents of the old article to User:DJMIXX305/DjMixx. You can work on it either there or off-wiki, whichever you prefer. Please feel welcome to contact me on this page again if you need to. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am KunleAdetoke. I saw your comments on my article on Debo Onifade after deleting it. I am sorry I mistakenly removed the speedy delete comment. I am also sorry that I probably didnt write it appropriately. I interviewed Debo Onifade, and captured my discussions in the article. I have seen so many articles without as much references or quality contents like this on wikipedia and I thought this was good enough. But I am willing to adjust it.

First, can you please send me back all the article contents because I lost my own copy. I will like to have your advice as I try to revise it

Kunle — Preceding unsigned comment added by KunleAdetoke (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:KunleAdetoke. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to prod this, but then thought it should be merged with the University article. No idea how to do this (especially with a pic...), or even if I'm allowed to. Help? Peridon (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also requested of JohnCD as he seems to be online. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sort of sorted. Peridon (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, that was quick - thanks! DBaK (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I looked up Boron, and there's nothing there to suggest Hennessy was made of that element, so I thought I'd better get rid of it at once. Don't want Wikipedia readers misled. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well quite! And I did worry that we'd invented a new hybrid between a bore and a moron, but I am assured that Prof Hennessy is neither ... thanks again and best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you restored an article Nu Alpha Kappa to a previous version because it contained copyright violations. However user: Hurricane-miami continues to repost the copyright material. I do not know what to do next. Justplaying2 (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello James. I see that the article was deleted. I want to let you know that this article seems not so important for now but this person/artist is so important in Vienna where she work hard making art. She created a new style & genre of music mixing Soul and Tango music. In few days will appear more links with comments in newspaper, magazine and a new personal webpage. The Fact the www.sissitassoultangos.com will be working on Friday under construction. There are many things to add I know! I worked hard to get it. Please I ask you special consideration to this article. Really is important that the people have access to this information. Let me know how can I do to recover the article. Can you help me? Kind regards, have a great day. Eng. Ariel Alejandro Gato www.estudiopuntoar.com.ar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sealightbaires (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

1. It would help if you told me what article you were talking about. At present I haven't a clue.
2. Wikipedia does not have articles on subjects which someone assures us will receive attention some day in the future. We need evidence that the subject is notable now.
3. Several aspects of your message suggest that your intention is to use Wikipedia to publicise the subject: perhaps the clearest such indication is "Really is important that the people have access to this information". Wikipedia is not a medium for publicising or promoting information about a topic which has not yet received substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear,

We are the management team of Marc Vlieger and we created a profile of Marc Vlieger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marc_Vlieger

We saw that you will may delete the profile

We want to tell you that any informations about Marc Vlieger are true You can check his profile and bio and record in his team where he train http://www.assimgym.com/fr/combattants.html

He have also a twitter account: www.twitter.com/MarcoVlieger

At this moment Marc Vlieger is in Koh Samui, Thailand in a TV REALITY SHOW of ENFUSION He fought last Monday and his next fight is next Saturday but can’t have the results because this is a realty show This show will end 7th of february http://www.enfusion-tv.com/en/profiles/fighters-2011/marc-vlieger.html

As you can see he fought in some tournament in Istanbul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-1_World_Grand_Prix_Selection_2010) and he’s on the next BFN Group present’s It’s Showtime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFN_Group_Presents_It%27s_Showtime_Brussels)

If you want any more information, pls let me know

Kind regards

www.assimgym.com www.bfn-group.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Vlieger (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2 February 2011

1. Have you read the deletion warning notice on your talk page? Or the speedy deletion notice in the article? If you have then you will see that the reason for the deletion nomination is nothing to do with doubt as to the truth of what the article says. It is necessary to have evidence of notability, not just truth.
2. The web site of a team the person belongs to and his Twitter page are not reliable independent sources.
3. If the account you are using represents his "management team" then you have a conflict of interest, and should not be writing an article about him.
4. A Wikipedia account is for an individual, and if the account represents his "management team" then that is a violation of Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! If you're free, can you delete the two middle versions of this image? Thank you. Novice7 | Talk 13:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The one I uploaded was all altered, while the other version has a label on top of it. Also, can you delete the second revision of this file too? It's a completely different single cover. Novice7 | Talk 14:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing selected versions is normally only permissible for particularly strong reasons, such as offensive personal attacks, blatant copyright infringements, and so on. I don't see any such strong reasons here. The fact that an old version is in some way inferior to the current version is certainly not enough reason to remove it from the history. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry. Thanks for explaining. Novice7 | Talk 15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was looking over my watchlist at a article i edited quite a while ago and i noticed that Casual's name (who was a prominent contributor to the aritcle i edited) was red! i dont believe this deletion was very well justified, as commercial success does not translate into notability. Please, i urge to revert this decision; Casual is just as important (and in most cases more) than a lot of artists who still have their pages. i think it would be a shame to have his article erased due to a misunderstanding of a quote. AlexLoeher (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Casual (rapper) was proposed for deletion by Tracer9999, who questioned the notability of the subject. Tracer9999 also quoted from the lead of the article, which said that the subject had not achieved commercial success. I cannot speak for what Tracer9999 may have intended, but I did not take that as meaning that the article should be deleted because it contained that quote: in fact that would certainly not have been grounds for deletion. The whole article failed to establish notability, and there does not appear to be a substantial amount of coverage in reliable independent sources. If you can provide sources establishing notability then that will be fine, and the article can be restored. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe i can establish adequate sources as i know Casual is a notable rapper. My only issue is im not experienced on wikipedia so if at all possible if the article was restored i could edit what exists until it meets "Tracer's" idea of what constitutes as notable. thank you for your response AlexLoeher (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, i think i have adaquately revised the article to be both notable and reliable. if you could, could you please restore the article? Thank you so much for your help in this AlexLoeher (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It took me a while to create that page and I don't understand why you deleted everything. The page contained facts about our School of Business and it didn't differ much from other pages about universities. All that hard work was for nothing. All the material and information was public and free and we wanted people to know that we exist and some information too since we are a small but very efficient unit. Now I have to do it all over again and I'm sure that won't please you this time either. And may I add, wikipedia is about sharing information which is to some extend some kind of advertising too.

Best regards,

lsbkati — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsbkati (talk • contribs) 06:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

1. You don't understand why the article was deleted? Have you read the messages on your talk page?
2. The fact that you refer to "our School of Business" and say "we wanted..." indicates that you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be writing an article on this subject.
3. You say that the article "didn't differ much from other pages about universities". There are two possibilities here. Firstly, there may be important differences that you didn't particularly notice. An insider often cannot stand back from the subject enough to see their own writing from the point of view of an outsider, and may genuinely fail to see that what they are writing will read as promotion to anyone else. This is one of the main reasons why the conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages writing an article on an organisation in which you have a personal involvement. Secondly, you may be right, and there are other articles on universities just as bad as this one. See WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is the relevant section of a page on "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions".
4. You say "all the material and information was public and free", but most of the content of the current version of the article is taken from pages which have "© Copyright Lappeenranta University of Technology" at the bottom.
5. "We wanted people to know that we exist" is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia does not exist to publicise little known subjects, or to announce existence to the public. It exists to act as an easily accessible repository of information which is already widely covered in publicly available sources. In addition, those sources must be independent of the subject: an institute's own web site is not a suitable source.
6. In referring to your intention to re-create the article you say "and I'm sure that won't please you this time either". I am not sure whether by "you" you mean me personally, but if you do then you have misunderstood the situation. The issue is not my personal likes or dislikes, but whether the article conflicts with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sometimes in my work as a Wikipedia administrator I decline requests to delete articles which personally I don't like, and sometimes I accept requests to delete articles which personally I don't dislike.
7. You are mistaken about the nature of Wikipedia. You may or may not be right about "Wikipedia is about sharing information", depending on exactly what you mean by "sharing", but Wikipedia's policy is that Wikipedia is not for promotion or advertising of any sort. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clarifying things for me. I can now clearly see that wikipedia is not the place for us. I apologize my earlier writing, I was upset to see my entire work vanished. Also I didn't realize that since I work in LSB I shouldn't create a page at all, but I bet people who have created articles on universities do actually work there themselves, because they are the best people to do so and know what they are writing about. What comes to your opinion about our late article, I have to say that the second version was better and not advertising and what comes to articles "as bad as it was", that's your personal opinion. I really thought wikipedia was user-friendly, but I stand corrected. I wouldn't have tried to create an article if one of the listing hadn't required it. Those listing are exactly what I would call sharing information, but I stand corrected again since you said I'm mistaken about the nature of Wikipedia. I'll stop banging my head against the wall and leave this issue to the professors and communications department.

Br. lsbkati — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsbkati (talk • contribs) 09:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello James, sorry, but it is a very special case. As you can notice : this IP is a usual Vandal. He is a French native speaker. He is forbidden under different IP in the French wikipedia for 3 months, so that I don't have any other solution, my level in English is far away to be equivalent to my French knowledge. Best regards. Nortmannus (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear James, Thanks a lot my brother for blocking that IP kindly protect my page with semi-protect, I would need your help in my articles as well.

Best Regards, Faizan Ali Varya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizanalivarya (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am respectfully requesting to have the Gloria Ferrer wikipedia entry undeleted. I have re-written the text from an unbiased point of view and added several journal entries to the page describing research to show that this subject has encyclopedic interest and merit. Please tell me how I can send these revisions to you for review. Thank you very much--24.5.52.51 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If you like you can post the material in User:JamesBWatson/Gloria Ferrer, which I have created for the purpose. If what you post seems to me to be suitable as an article I will move back into the main Wikipedia article space for you. If I think it needs improvement I will suggest how you can improve on it. (If it really is totally unsuitable then I will explain why and delete it, but I hope that won't be necessary. Although the earlier article had problems, it looks to me as though it should be perfectly possible to write a good article on the subject, and I am willing to help if necessary.) I am doing this in my own user space, as you have written to me anonymously, without using a Wikipedia account. If you have an account you can do it in your own user space if you prefer. However, whether you have an account or not, since I have created a page for the purpose you are welcome to use it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I have logged in and put the revised page on the User:JamesBWatson/Gloria Ferrer page you created. I hope this is correct, I appreciate your help very much. Very Best regards--Designforimpact (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Unfortunately I have to go offline now, but I should have time to look at it within the next 36 hours or so. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if you have had time to review the revised page on [[User:JamesBWatson/Gloria Ferrer] and if it's possible to re-post yet or does it need additional revision? Thanks--Designforimpact (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to move the Gloria Ferrer back into the main Wikipedia article space? Is this something I can do? Thanks very much--Designforimpact (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my bio from Wikipedia page on WMAL?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.172.26 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Assuming you have read the messages you were given at User talk:Tomgauger and the deletion log entry, what clarification do you need? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 30#Template:Invitation to edit be listed at WP:CENT since it has a wide impact on how Wikipedia will be viewed by readers? Cunard (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it certainly should. Go ahead and list it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I will. I think it should it be relisted to today's TfD log instead of the January 30 one so that an admin won't accidentally close it before it has had a full week at CENT. As a non-admin, is it okay if I relist it or should I ask an uninvolved admin to do so? Cunard (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything anywhere that says anything about this, but I can think of no reason why this sort of action should be limited to admins. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I've relisted the discussion to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 7#Template:Invitation to edit and listed it at CENT. Best, Cunard (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello JamesBWatson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Higher institute of business administration, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 doesn't apply to schools. Might be worth PRODding though. . Thank you. GedUK  13:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello this is user Aram-van, can you please check the page Tao (historical region). Thanks!Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI - I have contested your PRODs on the 6 network TV schedule articles that you proposed for deletion. I don't entirely disagree that the articles probably violate WP:NOT in some way or another, however there are hundreds of similar articles (see List of United States network television schedules) and any effort to delete them should cover all such articles and should be discussed and attain a consensus. PROD is not an appropriate deletion method for such articles, as it doesn't allow for community input. For more info on the history of these articles, see both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules. SnottyWong ^chatter 01:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm interested in 3rd partys having another look at the "Earthcore" article, especially the pending controversies section. i've gathered a number of articles to use as references, as well as evidence of the user "fisted rainbow" bringing, or threatening to bring, legal action against websites critical of him, explaining the general lack of material on the subject. I'm not comfortable posting it without the goahead due to ending up with a "level 3 warning" last time i tried to wikify the article. Cognitive Dissident (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We think that this article is relevant and meets the publication criteria. Luis Gallardo Garcia is a reference in the business world for his management and intellectual contributions on Brand & Marketing management, he lectures and publishes and he is quoted around the world...as well as interviewed by top media in multiple countries...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Gallardo is an example of authorized publications that compared to Luis Gallardo Garcia's bio are not as relevant and notable.

--Thapbook (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thapbook (talk • contribs)

I had already commented on this at your talk page before seeing this message. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, you deleted the page Portasound and the talk page i had written explaining why it wasnt suitable for deletion without talking to me about your motives. As i mentioned the band Portasound comply with more than 3 of the reasons to have a page or which you only need one. They have had music published for commercial availability. They have featured on numerous notable channels. National Radio BBC RADIO 1, XFM, 6MUSIC and many websites and publications They have also featured on commercial compilations available from large recording companies

I am new to wiki editing and i may have made some mistakes but the arbitrary deletion of the page whilst simultaneously ignoring my plea for the contrary seems a little wrong and not in the nature of this site. I cant help feel there is a kind of dictatorship of elites on here that rule with an iron fist that actually limits newbs from joining in on worthwhile topics otherwise unknown to the world.

Please respond (Jamesscdow (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)) jamesscdow

Hi James, we still think that the article should be re-published as Luis Gallardo Garcia is a reference in the business world for his management and intellectual contributions on Brand & Marketing management, he lectures and publishes and he is quoted around the world...as well as interviewed by top media in multiple countries...if there is a way to improve the editing please help us. --Thapbook 13:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr Watson, I am horrified to see you have deleted my page on 'Rear Admiral Cyril C Shah'- my grandfather who has recently passed away. After his death, I was clearing out old files and other documentation, and his full history came to light. He was a truly inspirational man who vastly contributed to modern British history, and seeing as you are a mathematics graduate, I think you should have respected the page, Sir Cyril, and myself by not deleting it before consulting myself or doing any research. I appreciate the good work you do on wikipedia, but please do be careful what you delete, as I am sure my page, which was currently under construction, would have enlightened people on this great man. Many Thanks, Shahte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahte (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the BLP prod tag you placed on Park Jung-Kwon because, as far as I can tell using Google Translate, the article has at least one reliable source to support at least one claim made in the article. I'm making this claim on the assumption that Google Translate transliterates his name to "bakjeonggwon". I don't read Korean at all, but the Korean name on the article looks like it appears in the sources where GT shows "bakjeonggwon". —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up the vandalism from Ion Iliescu. Due to the series of edits made by the vandal I had missed the whole extent of his disruption. As the article doesn't seem to be patrolled by many active editors, the vandalism may have remained there for quite a while if you hadn't checked it. Keep up the good work! Anonimu (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've undeleted the article Guido Poppe, that was proposed for deletion by you. This is an article about a very prominent malacologist. The article states clearly enough his notability. As a member of the WikiProject Gastropods I encounter his name almost every day during my researches in the taxonomy of molluscs. To substantiate my claim, I've added a number of inline citations. Therefore, I ask you to remove the proposed deletion template from this article. Thanks. JoJan (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I will do so, though I don't understand why you haven't simply done so yourself. Since you evidently dispute the PROD is there any reason not to? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I could have, but I rather have this done in agreement with the original proposer. JoJan (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like your assistance.

I prepared an article after reading all the instructions and believing that it was appropriate content.

I flagged it while it was in my user space for comment as a potentially controversial entry. I waited. Nobody replied so I submitted it. Somebody commented on Wikifying it but didn't say anything about it being unsuitable content, and I spent more time trying to do that. Then it was struck out. No discussion or feedback. Just struck out and banned. I queried this and did not get any response. I wondered if the problem was that I'd included information that confirmed the reputation and status of the entry. I thought I had to do that to verify the article.

I don't know what you are meant to do when people don't reply or talk to you. So I put it in again. Same result. No discussion.

Is it reasonable to expect that some allowance should be shown to newcomers who have tried to do the right thing and that there should be some consideration of the content. Or isn't that how it works?

Perhaps you might like to go back to the Foolkit entry. If you are a lawyer you should be able to judge the website and work out if it is suitable for mention in Wikipedia. I think that it is as valid an entry as AustLII, WorldLII,Findlaw etc.

A disillusioned Wikipedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.193.145 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I do have considerable sympathy with you. Many people come to Wikipedia to edit with no intention of doing anything wrong, only to find themselves falling foul of some Wikipedia policies or guidelines, very frequently the prohibition on using Wikipedia for promotion. I am aware that many people genuinely think that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can add any sort of material to Wikipedia, including using it as a free advertising service", and are genuinely taken aback to find that is not so, and I can sympathise with anyone who, in this situation, finds that all their work is lost. However, if your account has been blocked and would like to be allowed to edit again, and think you can avoid the mistakes you made first time, the thing to do is to request an unblock of your original account, not to try to get round the block by creating another account. Normally even a blocked editor can still edit their own talk page to make such an unblock request, unless their talk page access has been withdrawn because they have abused it. One other point: I can see two accounts which I am confident are yours, and another which looks as though it probably is. However, I can't find any suggestion of "Wikifying" any of the work of those accounts, so I wonder if there is another one. It may be that there is such a suggestion of Wikifying and I have missed it, as you have not indicated where to look for it. However, any unblock request will be more likely to succeed if you declare every account you have used. If you do make an unblock request please do explain how your future editing will be different from what you did in the past. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

--Kudpung (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, you deleted the page Portasound and the talk page i had written explaining why it wasnt suitable for deletion without talking to me about your motives. As i mentioned the band Portasound comply with more than 3 of the reasons to have a page or which you only need one. They have had music published for commercial availability. They have featured on numerous notable channels. National Radio BBC RADIO 1, XFM, 6MUSIC and many websites and publications They have also featured on commercial compilations available from large recording companies I am new to wiki editing and i may have made some mistakes but the arbitrary deletion of the page whilst simultaneously ignoring my plea for the contrary seems a little wrong and not in the nature of this site. I cant help feel there is a kind of dictatorship of elites on here that rule with an iron fist that actually limits newbs from joining in on worthwhile topics otherwise unknown to the world.

Please respond (Jamesscdow (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

Hello. I don't know what you have in mind when you refer to "3 of the reasons to have a page or which you only need one". Perhaps you mean the list of suggested criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, which suggests that a band "may" be notable if it meets one or more of the criteria. You said "They have had material in known publications. Namely the BBC Radio, BBC Websites, NME magazine, Kruger Magazine, and have had several commercial releases on both vinyl and CD." However, I have seen no evidence that there is any substantial coverage of the band. A few brief mentions here and there are not enough. As for BBC radio, they appear to have once had a song performed, as far as I can tell. If you like I can restore the contents of the article to a page in your user space for you to work on (commonly referred to as "userfying" it). This would be on the understanding that it would be a temporary measure for you to work on improving it before putting it back out as an article. It would not be a long-term way of keeping a page which would not be suitable for an article, and if it was not back out as an article in a couple of months or so then it would be deleted again. Let me know if you want me to do this. However, before you make a decision on this, I should warn you that I have made fairly extensive searches for information about this band, and everything I have seen suggests that the band does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. If you can prove me wrong then good, but I warn you of this because I have seen many people in this sort of situation spend a lot of time and effort in rewriting an article, only to see it deleted again. Rather than face this prospect you may be better off cutting your losses and writing about your band somewhere else instead of Wikipedia. I also note your own expression "worthwhile topics otherwise unknown to the world". It is a very common mistake to come to Wikipedia with precisely the intention of publicising such worthwhile but little known subjects. However, this is absolutely not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be on topics that have already received substantial coverage elsewhere, not on topics "otherwise unknown to the world". As for "worthwhile topics", you may like to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.

One final point. I remember that, when I first started editing Wikipedia some years ago, things could seem somewhat intimidating, with an army of experienced editors quoting policies and guidelines at me in ways that sometimes could be confusing, and so I can certainly sympathise with the way you feel. However, I can assure you that there is no "dictatorship of elites on here that rule with an iron fist", and on the whole new editors who view more experienced editors as potential supporters tend to have a much better time here than those who view us as some sort of enemy to be fought against. Wikipedia is open to everyone, and so we get all sorts here, good and bad. However, the vast majority of established editors are here to try to act cooperatively, and most are willing to try to help. (A major reason that most established editors are here to try to act cooperatively is that most of those who don't act cooperatively don't last here long.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for your detailed and comprehensive reply to me on this matter. You are right it is somewhat intimidating and seems particularly hard to make a good job of writing a wiki. I feel like leaving it is probably the best way forward as i feel like i cannot perform the required level for acceptance. Perhaps the band hasn't got a large fame but certainly on a par with some of the bands on here. Never the mind. Thanks for your comments James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesscdow (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Read. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't oppose you, but I'm less sanguine than you appear to be about this party's plans for the future. I really don't think they get it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A study showed that you can re-erupt Teide, El Teide has a structure similar to Vesuvius and Etna.--62.87.80.36 (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That I can re-erupt Teide? Unfortunately I don't think that's what you mean. Your grasp of English does not seem to be too good. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If I want to say.--83.46.242.192 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

you need to talk to the other guy as well instead of threatening to block me, he's the one who won't stop vandalizing the pageKelzorro (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The article OpenMedia.ca is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenMedia.ca until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello James,

I would like to know why you deleted : " Mario Martin Guitars " . There are many guitar companies on here , and MM guitars is just as relevant . There were more than enough references , and links on the page . Why would you single this page out for deletion ?

Should I continue to repost it everyday , or would like like to explain in detail why it was deleted , and other guitar pages are still up .  Should I maybe , write an article on Mario Martin the country singer instead ?  Please Respond . 

Rowdo (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also . I put the "Hang On" tag into the article . AND listed the explanation for the significance of the article , as well as added even more references , including a published book . Please give me a detailed explanation on why you did this thing . If you will not let this article be published on wikipedia , how should I modify it so that you will allow it . Again , I see lots of articles / pages on guitar manufactures , luthiers , guitar companies , and country music artist . Please don;t ignore me , or give me vague answers .

Rowdo (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The notice that was posted to your talk page when the article was nominated for deletion said that reason was "it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia", as you will presumably have seen. The deletion log entry gave a similar reason for deletion, as you must also have seen (otherwise you would have had no way of knowing that I was the deleting administrator). I am not sure what clarification of that reason you need. The article described the business as being a small family run shop, consisting of two people. There are many millions of such small businesses, and most of them are not notable enough to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. There may be special reasons why this one is an exception, but the article gave no indication at all that this was so.

Most of the references suffered from one or more of the following limitations: (1) not independent of the subject (e.g. the subject's own web site, or a site selling a product related to the subject), (2) not a reliable source (e.g. an open web forum of open wiki that more or less anyone can contribute to), (3) not substantial content (e.g. a brief listing). You refer to "a published book". Presumably this refers to They Heard Georgia Singing By Zell Miller. As far as I can see this book does not mention the Mario Martin Guitars business at all, though if there is a mention there which I have missed I would be grateful if you would give me a page number so that I can read it. In fact the only thing I have managed to find in the book with any connection at all to this business is a three sentence mention of Mario Martin, which tells us that he had a single that did quite well when he was seventeen, and that he got into the finals of a national talent contest. This does little to establish his notability, but even if it did a great deal to do so it would be irrelevant for an article about not him but a business that he participates in. Notability of a subject is not inherited from the notability of another subject with some connection to it.

You mention the existence of other articles on similar subjects. It is, of course, natural for a newcomer to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable, but unfortunately it can be misleading. Firstly, although another article may be on a similar subject, there may be crucial differences which makes one of them satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and not the other: Microsoft is notable, but the local computer services shop down the road from where I live isn't. That is an extreme example, but it illustrates the fact that in the same line of business does not guarantee the same degree of notability. Secondly, there are articles which do not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria, and shouldn't exist: many of them will eventually be deleted. Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability gives a more complete account of this, and even links to other related information if you are interested enough.

You ask "how should I modify it so that you will allow it". Unfortunately here I think you are making a mistake which is very common indeed amongst people who come to write an article promoting a subject close to their heart (or pocket) and see it deleted. The first question to ask is whether the subject is notable, and only if and when the answer "yes" has been obtained is there any point in asking how to write an article on the subject. If the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria then any effort expended on writing an article on it is likely to be wasted. No amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. In this case neither the (now deleted) article nor the results of my own searches gives any indication that the subject does satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria.

I have not ignored you, and I hope you don't regard what I have written as "vague answers", since it has taken me a significant amount of time to write. Finally, the answer to your question "Should I continue to repost it everyday" is "definitely not". Persistently reposting material you want to see on Wikipedia in the face of deletions because it does not satisfy Wikipedia's policies or guidelines leads to being blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

James , I appreciate your response . However , could you please tell me how the following small businesses that make guitars , are permitted to have an article page , and an article on Mario Martin Guitars is not . Since this partial list of guitar manufacturers is allowed by you to exist in their present form - should this be considered the official template to follow in re- listing the article on MM guitars ? Please advise .

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmoth 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_American_Guitars 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Custom_Amplifiers 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Jones_Guitars 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Guitars 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novax_Guitars 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadowsky 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Blues_Guitar_Workshop 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crafter 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastwood_Guitars 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_Guitars 10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Anderson_Guitarworks

Rowdo (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that that question was dealt with by my comments above together with the linked page at Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. If not then perhaps WP:OTHERSTUFF is clearer. Of the three million plus articles on English Wikipedia I am acquainted with only a tiny minority, and I have no idea whether any or all of the ones you list should be deleted. I could look at them, and perhaps some time I will, but I have only a limited amount of time and cannot follow up every link that I come across. If someone (including perhaps you) proposes one of them for deletion I may or may not be the administrator who eventually assesses that proposal, as I was in the case of the article you wrote. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

sir i edited the artical named Muhammad Asim Butt and add ref and other related info kindly now consider this artical for publishing on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.19.200 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This must refer to the fact that Muhammad Asim Butt was proposed for deletion by RJaguar3 as a biography of a living person with no sources, and duly deleted when no such sources were added. Presumably you are User:Xeega, and have re-created the article. The previous reason for deletion appears not to apply, as there are sources cited, but I haven't the remotest idea how good or relevant those sources are, nor whether or not the article should be deleted for other reasons. Maybe sometime I will find time to have a look at it. Thank you for drawing this to my attention. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, why do you want to delete my page of Bogdan Cristea? I even added references from MMA sites like Sherdog. This is not fair from you, I worked a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyperuspapyrus (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 February 2011

Is there any evidence of meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria? See WP:NOTE and WP:BIO for what is required. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi James. I've undone some of your recent edits to the article, and so I thought I'd show you the courtesy of explaining my thinking. Firstly, I removed the {{noindex}} template, since its effect is actually disabled in the mainspace (see the template's documentation). Secondly, I've removed the line "There is no reliable record of the term having been used by anyone else". Even though this is most certainly true, I've removed it because it is based on our own investigations (rather than reliable sources), and hence shouldn't be in the article itself. The way I see it, the article will be deleted soon, and any readers who stumble upon it will see that it has been tagged as original research.  -- Lear's Fool 09:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson, I am unsure as to why the Wiki page on Raheem Sterling was deleted. As I am very new to wikipedia i made the mistake of creating the same page more than once. However it was only the duplicate pages that i signaled to be deleted and now it appears that all the pages have been removed. In addition I unable to work out in what part was my article was ' a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion' if this is the case believe highlight where and I will edit accordingly. It is of my belief Raheem Sterling will be a great footballer for Liverpool FC and England and was shocked that a page had not been set up already. It was never my intentions to advertise the player but more to inform wiki users of his accomplishments. I look forward to your reply, Thanks, Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankikenye (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There was an earlier article on this subject, which was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raheem Sterling, and it was decided it should be deleted. In such circumstances a new article on the subject can be written if there has been a significant change of circumstances, so that the reasons for the deletion no longer apply, but in this case Jimbo online decided that this was not so, and nominated the article for deletion. I examined the new article, the old one, and the deletion discussion, and determined that the reasons given for deletion did indeed still seem to apply as much as they did at the time of the discussion. Jimbo online should have informed you of the deletion nomination, but since he hadn't done so I dropped you a note to do you the courtesy of letting you know of the deletion and the reason for it. I will contact Jimbo online and remind him that authors of articles should be informed of any proposal to delete their work. As for the note about promotion, such language as "One of the most sought-after young talents in English football", "The talented winger", and "he has continued to make great strides" is not the sort of detached, impartial recording of facts that is suitable for an encyclopaedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the proposed deletion tag from this article. The article stated that she had had a top 30 hit - this is easily verifiable via several chart aggregator sites or a search in Google Books, which will usually find results from the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles. Can I just remind you that proposed deletion is for articles that are "uncontroversially a deletion candidate" - an article about a musician who has had a significant hit on a recognised national chart does not fit this criterion. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi James,

when I came across some paragraph I edited half a year ago, I realised my changes had disappeared again. Your reason for deletion was "(Revert. Unsourced and false (e.g. consider n=3, a=3, b=4).)" Without being conceited I must admit that I didn't commit a source as I didn't expect the need to source simple math truth. Your claim that is false, had probably not been thoroughly overthought though. I address you as a mathematician to work more thoroughly in future such actions please.

Your counterexample is NOT a counterexample. If n=3, a=3 and b=4, then gcd(${\displaystyle n^{a}-1,n^{b}-1}$) evaluates to gcd(26,80)=2, and right side evaluates to ${\displaystyle 3^{1}-1=2}$, too.

I didn't have a copy of the cited reference (Donald E. Knuth: Concrete Mathematics) handy at the time of my edit (as you by the time of your deletion, probably too). But meanwhile I had a look in it, there is some even stronger conjecture, namely

${\displaystyle \operatorname {gcd} (n^{a}-m^{a},n^{b}-m^{b})=n^{\operatorname {gcd} (a,b)}-m^{\operatorname {gcd} (a,b)}}$

for coprime n,m with n>m. So your argument of missing source isn't valid any longer, too. It is the same source, as the previous line, it was correlated to.

I address you as a mathematician to work more thoroughly in future such actions please.

84.19.215.194 (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I can't now say what I had in mind when I made that edit, but clearly I made some sort of mistake. Thanks for the correction. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your work on AIV. I'm curious about this report [1]. Did you see the additional diffs I put in? Hoaxes/Promotional like this certainly seem like vandalism to me. [2], [3] . Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did see. These edits look very dubious to me, but I don't absolutely know for certain that we are dealing with a hoax, so I gave the benefit of the doubt, thinking that if it is deliberate vandalism then the editor will probably continue disruptively and action can then be taken. Do you have definite evidence that it's a hoax? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

These are professional NBA basketball players, broadcasters, and rappers. The editor made all edits like that this morning.. more [4], [5], the editor has seemed to stop and perhaps with the advice given, it will not be a problem anymore.. I just wanted to make sure you knew about those type of edits too. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

hey cutoffties i know shelden williams, he follows me on twitter. i won a contest with my friends and got to meet him and gave him a cd. why did my john buccigross get taken down, i cited it appropriately with a video on youtube that clearly shows us shouting out to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukeare1 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

James, I'm sorry to bug you about this, but since you're familiar with this situation, can you please take a look at the user's recent edits. Example ([6], [7], [8]). I know it's not the clear cut vandalism but the user's persistence is getting a little out of hand. Even if these things aren't hoaxes, they're trivia and don't belong in the article. The user is either not reading or adhering to clear guidelines that were patiently spelled out. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ok i understand that some of the information is trivia, but i still think needed because it shows an insight of shelden williams life on how he gives back to the fans and how buccigross again cares about his fans and gives shout outs to them. i think that is important and shouldnt be brushed aside. also there are plently of things on this website that arent cited approriately that are up, but you continue to let them on, your just coming at me for some reason. i mean look at shelden williams page it talks about how he played baseball with Matt Kemp in high school, wheres the source for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukeare1 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

in regards to the matt kemp stuff, this guy sg whatever put in citation needed, so as long as i do that im fine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukeare1 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, user has been blocked for 31 hours. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

[9] –MuZemike 22:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Much as I guessed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the newsgroup item you removed from Talk:Prime number in [10] saying 'Removing what appears to be a likely copyright infringement' was Archimedes Plutonium quoting his own posting. Not that I'm terribly sorry to see such stuff removed! Dmcq (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it very probably was. However, we need evidence of copyright permission: even if the Wikipedia editor had said "I am the original poster to the newsgroup" that is not reliable evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember that, I'd probably let it through in most cases but I can see the use here. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I too would often let it go. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

--Wildtuck (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)I apologize for what you considered "vandalism" on the s.o.stereo. page. I was merely trying to add third person appropriate information about the band as a result of the warning that the previous posting did not meet wikipedia's guidelines and was on the fast track for removal.

Bruce Irvine wildtuck--Wildtuck (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I accept that. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that we must be in need of education on getting this band listed. They are achieving great success and all of my other clients are listed in Wikipedia. We have been inundated with fans that actually requested the ability to read more about them on Wikipedia. Hopefully, we will figure out exactly how to present this to satisfy Wikipedia's standards.

Had I not posted, the article would still have been deleted - correct? --Wildtuck (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your edits made very little difference one way or the other. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

i (we) appreciate your time and explanation. We will become better prepared. --Wildtuck (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your statement of a “majority consensus”, it could be dangerous, especially if people are not expert in this field: majority could adopt a false idea and will never access to other opinions. For this reason, an “encyclopedia” should provide the maximum reference and not searching for the “mainstream statement”. The main point is that there is clearly evidence against the scientific point reported in the Film Agora. My little contribution was only to underline this fact. This is not a personal point of view but a fact and it should be reported. There are many books about the discovery of elliptic orbits. Briefly, I was asked to put a reference [[11]]. Then, I mentioned the primary reference. Apparently it was not enough: I was asked to put a secondary reference. Thus, I put a very good book on the story of astronomy. Everything was cancelled and I got an edit war. Please, be constructive and read again my discussion in the talk page and you will see that I have not revered five times, I was satisfying the queries made by Viriditas and Erik.--Linceo (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Recently you redeleted an article on Raheem Sterling. I first encountered this person's name on User talk:Ponyo; Ponyo had reredeleted it, and somebody was rudely complaining about this. Rudeness aside, it struck me that there was something to the complaint, and I therefore restored the article. I hope you don't disagree too violently. Clearly the article needs improvement, but I can do little because I am ignorant of soccer. -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You should undelete the Harveys SeatbeltBags page. They are not a retailer, as someone edited them, they are an American manufacturing company that is actually STILL producing ALL of their products in America. They have history, and a following, and create a great handbag. I don't work for them and neither does the women who wrote the intial Wikipedia entry. You, however, obviously know absolutely NOTHING about them except what you can get from Google. So please, stop with the childish self-indulgent behaviour, undelete the page you THINK is an advertisement, and allow people who actually know something about the topic to edit it. A friend of mine put quite a bit of work into that entry only to have you delete it on a whim, and for absolutely no valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.237.45 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 February 2011

Do you know, on the basis of my experience working on Wikipedia, my impression is that on the whole editors who are civil to other editors more often get cooperation than those who accuse people they disagree with of "childish self-indulgent behaviour", and of acting "on a whim, and for absolutely no valid reason".

It is not true that I knew nothing about them except what I could get from Google: I knew what was written in the article, and in the various internet pages the article linked to. However, most of it was irrelevant, as the article was nominated for speedy deletion as promotional, which can be assessed by looking at the contents of the article itself, without regard to external evidence. I assessed it, and concluded that the editor who nominated it was clearly right.

I do have every sympathy with people who come to Wikipedia, and put a significant amount of work into writing articles, with no reason to suppose that they are doing anything wrong, and find to their surprise that they have not acted within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, so that their work is lost. However, the article did not conform to Wikipedia's standards. It was written in a promotional way. I did not act on "a whim", and there were reasons, whether you agree with them or not. If you would like to give me the title of the article I can look back and see in more detail what it was like, but I don't remember its title off hand. If you do that and ask me politely I will see if I can help you. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

So basically, you don't even REMEMBER deleting it? I'm pretty sure that in itself qualifies your action as "on a whim." It's a shame you can't find something more productive to do with your time than UN-Contributing to a public work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harveys_Original_Seatbelt_Bag Here's your link. It wasn't written in a promotional way any more than any other brand's Wikipedia page is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.237.45 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 February 2011

As a matter of fact I do remember deleting it. I can't imagine why you think that the fact that I don't remember its exact title implies otherwise. However, if I didn't remember this particular deletion I am not convinced that would be significant. My contributions record shows that in the first 9 days of February I made 876 edits (an average of about 97 per day) and the administrative log shows that in the same time I performed 342 administrative actions (38 per day). I don't remember every one of those 1218 actions. As I have said, I do happen to remember this particular deletion, but if I didn't I don't see that it would reflect badly on me. I could have searched through the deletion logs to find an article with "Harveys" in its title which I had deleted recently, and indeed I often do choose to put in the time and effort to make such searches for inexperienced editors who politely ask for help. I looked very carefully at the article, as it was tagged by RHaworth for speedy deletion as promotional, and I do agree with him. Whether there are other articles which are just as promotional is not directly relevant to the deletion of this article, for reasons which are described at Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability and WP:OTHERSTUFF. The offer I made above to help you if you ask me politely still stands for the moment. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a second chance to make the Harveys article meet the standard of Wikipedia. I will work on it as a draft and ask for guidance along the way. I understand that it takes patience, and in time the article will be available to everyone eagerly waiting for it. Thank you again SJayQ (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

When you have time can you take a look at the rewrite Harveys article in my userspace. I want to make sure I am headed in the right direction. Thanks.SJayQ (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello JamesBwatson. Per your advice I submitted my revised article on Harveys to be reviewed. Harveys_SeatbeltBag After days of no response, and asking another editor involved with the topic to review my article I moved it to a real page as I felt if was ready to. It has been marked again for speedy deletion. Can you please have a look and help to resolve this as it is now an article with notability, references, and non advertising wording. This whole process is very frustrating. I am playing by the wikipedia rules and keep hitting road blocks. Thank You SJayQ (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP This Nancy editor is making a mess of my article. She is changing the name to harveys retailor ( which they are not, they design and manufacture the bags) She is taking my knowledge of the subject matter and using that against me for writing a neutral piece on the bags. This piece is not advertisement in the least!. Please help me to solve this as you have been involved from the beginning. Thank you SJayQ (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know. Since most of the articles had "Department" after them, without any disambiguation needed, I simply uniformized them. Nan Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

But I did check them, as I said above. About Natalia Goncharova, I was just being purist with the Russian language, but if what you say about the hits is true, then it stays that way. How did it occur to you that English Russian-corrupted hits would be the only ones? Nan Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback but I feel it was a bit unfair. I can see that the issues your raised are promotional, and that was an example of my first article and I am working on making articles not at all sound promotional. I based my articles on similar articles I have looked at and tried to make them not promotional. I feel as a result of my first article, which admittedly is promotional, I am now been scrutinised more and singled out. The restaurant I used for a reference was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Devonshire_Gardens and follow the same outline as them as I assumed if that was allowed, then my content would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon m campbell (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 February 2011

Thanks for understanding. I will work hard to create better articles that contain valuable information for users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon m campbell (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 February 2011

Replied at User talk:Gordon m campbell. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have edited the page as you suggested. Any feedback would be great.

Hello, Hope you are well. I have worked the Ardanaiseig house article. Can you let me know if you have any other suggestions - I think I have removed any information that may be construed as promotional references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon m campbell (talk • contribs) 09:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jason,

Yesterday a page for theWeather Club was created, by another user and then swiftly deleted by yourself. Can I question why this is the case, and submit a request for the article to be re-instated?

theWeather Club is a chaitable organisation, a sister charity of the Royal Meteorological Society, which was set up as the new public outreach arm of the Society, with charitable aims which reflect those of the Royal Meteorological Society, in particular educating the public regarding the increasingly important weather and climate issues. theWeather Club has had a high media coverage since it launched in September 2010 and has been seen in hundreds of pieces of national television and press coverage, with regular columns in some daily national newspapers. I would feel that it is likely, that after viewing or reading about theWeather Club in the press, some users may find an Encyclopedic resource, such as Wikipedia, a good way to find out more about theWeather Club and its foundation, charitable status and scientific background before visiting theWeather CLub homepage, and would therefore argue that theWeather Club is worthy of article creation.

Similarly theWeather Club is like any other charitable organisation found on Wikipedia, such as the Institute of Physics or Royal Geographical Society, or evn a magazine publication such as the New Scientist or BBC Focus which can all be found on here and are considered Encyclopedic. I would like to either redo the article myself, (but am unwilling to do so if it will just be deleted again so some advice would be good) or for you to reinstate the original article, which followed the structure and content of many other articles seen here, with little intent at promotion, but simply to inform others of its existence.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLR1987 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 18 February 2011

Hi JamesBWatson,

Many thanks for picking up on the (still with a personal biography) User:Mersedeh Abedini and User talk:Narcissus24 sockpuppetry – appreciated. As Narcissus24 blanked a User Jimarian article/page twice before he/she started the Jamshid arian assl (Jim Arian) article, and it seems likely copy-pasted what was blanked into Jamshid arian assl, this without any complaint, it could well be that User:Jimarian - revision history could be a sockpuppet too. Best wishes. Acabashi (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so too. In fact I think "could well be" is on the cautious side. However, I decided only to deal with the really unambiguous case, and give the benefit of the doubt to the merely probable one. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi James. Could you take a look at this and let me know what you think. Seems very knowledgeable for a new IP user. --Kudpung (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've checked (at a rough guess) about half of the IP's edits, and I have no doubt at all that this person has prior experience of editing Wikipedia. However, I haven't seen any editing that is disruptive or objectionable in any way, so unless there is good reason to think there is a problem such as block evasion I don't see that there is a need to follow this up. Do you have any reason for thinking there is a problem? It could easily, as far as I can see, be a user who has previously edited under another IP and has moved to this one for perfectly legitimate reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have any special reason for thinking there is a problem. My first thought was the same as yours: a Wikignome whose IP had suddenly changed, or an editor who has moved from one public Internet place to another. The edits are very mixed, such as one would expect from a WP:RCP, but my attention was drawn by the edit to Worcester because it's on my watchlist and it was an unusual edit. Kudpung (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to keep an eye on it and let me know if and when you see anything suspicious that's fine, but my own inclination is to forget it. There is a chance the user is up to something, but there is not enough reason to think so to make it worth spending any time on it, in my opinion. However, if you choose to take a different view and manage to find something funny going on I will be interested to know about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the Indonesian vandal has returned to his old tricks again. Yesterday (or several hours ago), he used the address 61.247.31.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and he seems to be gaga over Pokemon. He also vandalized the Little League World Series article, the semi-protection of which expired recently, and Children's programming on NBC, which he also frequently vandalizes. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Normally I wouldn't say it quite that way, but given the user's preoccupation with the subject, I thought it uniquely appropriate. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I liked about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You deleted Michael Gleissner [12] and left a redlink in the middle of an article I improved. Ouch. Could you userfy it to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Michael Gleissner so I can expand and source it as well? I'll check back with you before a return to mainspace. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}`

Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

--Kudpung (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi James,

Hope all is fine with you.

Is it possible to return my page online, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_El_Desouki

If you need reference, please find below link for an interview was made by Ahmed El Desouki in an Egyptian Entertainment portal called FilFan.com on 22 Jan 2008.

http://www.filfan.com/News.asp?NewsID=7500

Please tell me if there is anything else I can do to get my page back.

Thank you in advance.

Have a good day.

Yasmine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasmine Al-Samahy (talk • contribs) 10:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the article. You should add references to suitable reliable sources as soon as possible. The article is quite extensive, and at a quick skim I am not sure how much of it the reference you give covers It is certainly a good start, and should be enough to prevent deletion as an unreferenced biography of a living person, but you should provide more sources if you can. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply Kudpung (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my edit at Bar. I'd got so used to deleting the spam that I hadn't noticed that in that particular case the IP had removed what he'd added with one of his other incarnations, so I had ended up adding it back in again.. My brain needs a rest.  :-) - David Biddulph (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an easy mistake to make: I've done the same sort of thing myself. You get into a sort of rhythm of reverting whatever the troublesome editor does. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there you decided top block me for violating wiki policy. I didn't even realise I had done anything wrong and have addressed the problem by removing my comments.

Now since you seem to be the type of person who loves to follow the rules how about you follow the following rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PA and stop the 6 months of personal attacks that have been happening to me ? Let's hope there isn't any hypocrisy or double standards here and you do the right thing .......Fisted Rainbow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.221.57 (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I will reply at User talk:Fisted Rainbow. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. My decline was merely meant to reflect that the report did not fall within AIV criteria. If there were non-AIV reasons to sustain a block, I have no objection. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi James,

Just put a speedy attack delete on John "Beatz" Holohan, by User talk:Ncd33 which appeared to attack you. It was immediately questioned by User:Porchcrop - see my dscussion page. Perhaps a sockpuppet investigation here? Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was certainly written by someone who was feeling unfriendly to me, but it was pretty mild, as attack pages go. I have posted a message to the author, but my guess is it was a SPA that has done its work and will never come back, in which it's not worth bothering with. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Krashlandon, award you, JamesBWatson, this barnstar for your outstanding diligence, patience, and willingness to write exhaustively long explanations to editors who have made mistakes, as in your dealings with me and especially in the Dukeare1 case. Krashlandon (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A little thanks for your good work. Krashlandon ^(talk) 16:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Seen. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

dear sir

i am priyadharshini i have included sources of reference for my article of Mr sai Madhusudhan , can u please repost the article , i took great pain in publishing the article , he is our real hero of tamils , you can watch his shows on satelite TVs and he is also the person who is really our protector

regards humanrights.dc@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.102.141.98 (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for your administrative work in some recent cases (OK, lets call it by name, for blocking some vandals). Often I would report an obvious vandalism and be rejected with some petty bureaucratic claim or suggestion to take the subject to some noticeboard where it will be ignored. I try so hard to tutor people, and I only resort to asking administrative help as a last resort, so this is quite annoying. But not when your bold hand is handling the case. Thank you for helping me and other editors improve Wikipedia. --Muhandes (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi James. I'm not sure if you are the editor who posted on my talk page without being logged in regarding the ANI post about the merged AfDs but if so, just to let you know that I've replied. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing to do with me. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess it will remain a mystery! Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem whatsover. Thanks for straightening things out!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There certainly were large text sections that were copies, but there may be a salvagable article in there somewhere. What I'm thinking of doing is pulling over the article in tl.wikipedia.org (http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unibersidad_ng_Pilipinas,_Baguio) and referencing the list of degrees/majors from http://www.educationpinoy.com/university-of-philippines.html . I'm not worried about getting the deleted page back, it is sitting over at http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=University_of_the_Philippines,_Baguio . I'm not sure where the list of alumni came from though. Do you think that's enough for at least a stub article?Naraht (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to keep my account -- just delete the article please. I'll place the deleted article in another place. Thank you. Please delete article and I'll find out how to edit/delete when I return. Teelovedavis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teelovedavis (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done User page deleted - that seems to be what you mean. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You've beat me to reverting vandalism a few times this morning; I think that your anti-vandalism work deserves some recognition! Sophus Bie (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, regarding your user name, are you a Sherlock Holmes fan? Sophus Bie ^(talk) 15:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Thanks.
2. Well, I read all the stories years ago, and enjoyed them, so I suppose you could say so. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to do quite a bit of vandalism patrolling, have you considered using Huggle? It has to be used with care, as it is very easy to make mistakes, but if you are prepared to take that care it is a great help, and considerably reduces the time it takes to deal with vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome!

I have considered using Huggle, however I use Linux as my operating system, and I haven't yet set aside the time to get in running in WINE. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 16:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You could try Igloo, which is a platform-independent alternative to Huggle. My very small amount of experience of it suggests it is less convenient than Huggle, but it seems to be a reasonable alternative, and should be OK with Linux. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that, thanks! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 16:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)