User talk:JBW/Archive 65

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 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

Hi JamesBWatson. I've noticed that the user "Mario Garau" (talk) is continually vandalizing the article "Olbia Costa Smeralda Airport", adding unsurced stuff or removing informations without giving reasons, like here. This is also the only article that this user edits. could you do something?
Thank you very much. Wjkxy (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wjkxy:

1. Vandalism is editing which is deliberately intended to be harmful. I see no evidence whatever that Mario Garau is doing that: as far as I can see, he is making changes that are probably intended in good faith to be constructive. If you think those edits are not helpful, then it would be better for you to politely explain to Mario why you think that, rather than just posting messages to him accusing him of "disruptive editing" and "vandalism" without explaining what it is about his editing that you disagree with.
2. Removing information without giving reasons? You mean like this, this, this and this? Please look at those edits, and especially take note of which editor made them. I don't know whether in Italian you have anything equivalent to the English expression the pot calling the kettle black.
3. Adding unsourced stuff? You mean like this?
4. Mario is a new editor, who probably does not yet know much about how Wikipedia works. For example, he may not know about the need for providing sources. You, however, have been around long enough to know about such things; indeed, the fact that you mentioned the issue of unsourced content in your message above shows clearly that you do know about them. You and your friend Zurich00swiss have been harassing a new editor, instead of trying to help him. You have reverted huge numbers of his edits, without giving any explanation why, whether in an edit summary, on his talk page, on the article's talk page, or anywhere else. You have done this mass-reverting of Mario's editing twice. If you are not already acquainted with the page Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot then you may find it helpful to read it now.
5. You may like to consider posting to Mario's talk page again, this time trying to help him understand why you disagree with his editing, and suggesting how he may do better, rather than just accusing him of being disruptive and vandalising Wikipedia. You and Zurich00swiss may even like to consider whether to remove the unhelpful messages you have already posted there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I noticed that some of its edits weren't disruptive (but always without adding sources), however the biggest part of its editing looks like vandalistic: Mario adds a lot of invented destinations, adds redlinks and removes parts of a table. I'll be more polite with him, but I'm totally not responsible for the messages of Zurich00swiss, he is my friend, but edits with his mind ;).

Anyway, I've sent a message to Zurich00swiss to talk about that, because I agree with you that the messages were inappropriate, but I have never said to him that he was a vandali. Thanks Wjkxy (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wjkxy: OK, you say that Mario added "invented destinations". If so, that is vandalism, but previously you only said that he added unsourced content, not that the content was "invented". You can't assume that anyone else, such as myself, has the background knowledge to instantly see that the information is false, nor is it reasonable to expect me to spend a lot of time searching to find information and check the information, if you knew all along that it was fictitious, and could easily have told me. When you reverted Mario's editing your edit summaries just told us that you were reverting hsi edits: you never explained why. It is also difficult to take seriously a complaint about an editor adding unsourced content and removing content without explanation when the person making the complaint has repeatedly added unsourced information and removed content without explanation in the same article. Personally, I don't much like redlinks, but the accepted consensus is that adding redlinks is not always a bad thing, as you will see if you read Wikipedia:Red link, so simply saying that Mario "added redlinks" does not necessarily indicate that he was doing anything wrong. Likewise the fact that he "removes parts of a table" is not necessarily bad: he may have good reasons for doing so, or he may believe that he has good reasons, even if you and I disagree. I think the best thing to do first would have been to have asked him why he was removing the content. I do accept that the message you posted was perfectly civil, and I was perhaps too hasty in lumping you and Zurich00swiss together, as your message to Mario was very different from Zurich00swiss's. However, being perfectly civil is not the same as being helpful: telling a new user to "check that [their editing] will follow guidelines" is unlikely to be very helpful, as the editor is likely to have no idea what guidelines you are referring to. In fact, a new editor may not even know that there are guidelines.

Can you tell me what "invented destinations" Mario added, and perhaps point me to evidence showing that the destinations are invented? If you can, then naturally I will reconsider what attitude I should take to Mario. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ops sorry. I told you that the destinations were unsurced, but in fact are invented (I mean that are not operated from this airport]. A little mistake beacasue in aviation-related articles we use to say that a flight is unsurced when we can't verify the flight, so usually unsurced destinations are invented. However, one example is this. you can find the writings "|Neos|Seasonal: Milan Malpensa" and "|Luxair } | Seasonal: [[Luxembourg]", which means that these airlines fly from Olbia to those destinations. but if you check on airline's website, you wont find anything about these flights: here and here. Wjkxy (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wjkxy: I made a google search for Luxair "Olbia Costa Smeralda" Luxembourg. The very first hit I got was this page, which says "Starting from May 17th, 2015 the new direct flight, operated by Luxair airline, connects Luxembourg to Olbia. The connection has a weekly frequency, on Sunday, and it is available from May17th until September 27th, 2015." Even if there are some inaccuracies in Mario's editing, that suggests to me that your own checking is not thorough enough to justify any confidence that information is wrong because you say so. I suggest that in future you check very carefully before you accuse other editors of vandalism.

I also checked one of the other examples you mentioned. This page, headed "Flights from Milan to Olbia", in the section "Airports in Milan" says "Twelve airlines provide services to the airport, including Air Arabia, Neos, Onur Air and Wind Jet." It does not say that all those airlines fly between Milan and Olbia, but in the context of a page headed "Flights from Milan to Olbia", it would be perfectly natural for someone to think that was what it was saying. I have no idea whether Mario had looked at that page, but I give it as an example to show that even if the information was wrong, it could easily be a good-faith mistake, rather than deliberate vandalism: the thing to do is first to ask Mario where he got his information, and only if he does not make a satisfactory answer start thinking that he may be acting in bad faith.

To ask the editor for sources was perfectly reasonable (though it would have been more helpful to have explained what you mean by that) but to assume that just because you can't see any sources the editing must be vandalism was not reasonable: as I have shown, one of the examples you gave appears to actually have been correct, and the other, as far as I can see, may be either correct or incorrect, but even if it is incorrect it may be an innocent mistake. If you had asked the editor, and he had either not answered or had given an unsatisfactory answer, and he had then continued with the same kind of editing, and after that you had asked me for help, I would have given a very different answer to you than the one I have given. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't looked at Olbia airport's website, because it is not updated (for example Wind Jet closed all its flights in 2013), but I can undestand that Mario could had made a mistake. Anyway I had deleted all its edits because I (and my friend) found that the page of the airport had a lot of mistakes, and because, to be honest, Mario looked as a previous vandal (now probably blocked), which edited with his IP in a similar way the article "Palermo Airport". So I thought that asking him sources was unnecessary, because the other parts of Mario's edits were made in the wrong way, like the deletion of the table, not allowed according to WP:AIRPORTS. (ok, this also may be just a mistake, but for us the easily way to restore the article was delete all his inappropriate edits) Wjkxy (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: looking at Mario's contributions I've found that he has posted in one of his edits the Official website of Olbia Airport as a source (the website that you've found). So now I agree with you that he wanted to do a good job. When I arrive at home I'll check better if something was true to readd it at the article. Wjkxy

I tried to write a page about the China Research Center, which is an organization founded in 2001 that is basically a network of people from different universities who are dedicated to researching and educating people about greater China. It is similar to a lot of think tanks that have wikipedia pages. However, I got flagged by you for speedy deletion and my page was deleted because I hadn't made an argument for its credible significance. I realize now that I should have done a lot more work on the page before publishing it... but in the future, how would I make it clear that the China Research Center is significant enough to have a page just like other think tanks? Thanks. CharlieSAllen (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Alyscampbell: The article told us that the organisation is "a group of associates", which is scarcely an indication of notability: any group of people can get together and give themselves a name. The article then went on to tell us how the "associates" "committed to building bridges" and "dedicated to promoting understanding", which reads more like a promotional brochure for the organisation than anything else: the kind of language used in what campaigning organisations sometimes refer to as their "mission statements". Nothing in the article gave any more indication of significance than the aspirations that the members of the group have. I searched for information about the group, to see if I could find anything better than what was presented in the Wikipedia article. Doing so took a little work, to avoid irrelevant pages which use the sequence of words "China research center" without referring to this organisation (such as the "China Research Centre" at the Royal Holloway University of London, the "China Research Center for Insurance and Risk Management" at Tsinghua University, the Ford Foundation's "China Research Center for Comparative Politics and Economics" and so on). When I had done that, what I was left with consisted largely of pages which were clearly created by or on behalf of the organisation. Most obviously, there were pages at the web site www.chinacenter.net, but some other pages with quite different URLs turned out on closer examination clearly to be not independent sources: for example, there was a page about the China Research Center at www.eprcreations.com, a web site which says of itself "EPR Creations develops online platforms for the unique requirements of university research projects, classes, & programs." Then there were such items as the organisation's FaceBook and LinkedIn accounts, the College web site of the editor of "China Currents", pages offering copies of "China Currents" for sale, and so on. I found no sign of the sort of substantial coverage in independent, third party reliable sources which are required to establish that a topic satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If a topic does not satisfy those guidelines, then any work put into writing an article about it is likely to be wasted, as the article is likely to be deleted. In my opinion, there are far too many of these guidelines and policies on Wikipedia, and most of them are far longer and more complex than they need to be, which makes it very difficult for a new editor to find his or her way around them, but a reasonably useful summary of most of the main issues relating to this situation is provided at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which you may possibly find helpful. It is natural for anyone new to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable, but unfortunately doing so is nowhere near as reliable a guide as you may expect. Firstly, another "think tank" which has an article may be more notable in the sense defined in Wikipedia's guidelines. Alternatively, it may be no more notable at all, and its article without indication of notability may simply have escaped notice. A large proportion of new articles which don't satisfy Wikipedia's requirements are noticed and deleted quickly, but some manage to escape for quite a long time, and are then eventually deleted. Unless you say specifically which articles you have in mind, it is impossible to know whether their subjects are or are not more notable than the "China Research Center". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I haven't yet received your email, unfortunately. You can email me directly. --David Edgar (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining our error on the user page, James! We made a mistake when we started this and we appreciate you leaving us a message on how to post properly. MacStratGrp (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Yours was the first name I came across of an admin when I looked at the suspected socks of User:Bowei Huang 2. I requestyou look at the edit history of User:Sedont and block him as well. He's got the same m.o., creating, then blanking his user page, a fixation on various ideologies, and a history of asking random "is country X" an example of "demography Y" questions at the ref desks. Thanks.

μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI I have taken this to SPI instead, here in case you want to comment, otherwise they can handle it, sorry to bother you. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the account, which was a total WP:DUCK, and left a comment at the SPI. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

JaamesBWatson,

Thank you for your note. Smith Travel Research changed its legal name several years back to STR, Inc. Can the Smith Travel Research article be moved and show STR, Inc. as the display title?

Here is the company's "About" page: http://www.str.com/about

Also, the STR Analytics site is no longer active. It is re-directing to str.com. Can that STR Analytics link (http://www.stranalytics.com/) be removed? STRminerd (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@STRminerd: I have moved the article to STR, Inc, leaving a redirect at Smith Travel Research, so that anyone searching under the old name will still find the article. I have also added a link to it to the disambiguation page STR, which lists a large number of uses of that abbreviation. You have already made the change to the link to the website - perhaps you forgot you had done it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson,

Thanks, this is very helpful. How about the "cleanup to comply" note at the top of the article. Anything we need to do for that? 50.202.211.171 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWAtson,

Recently two of the pages we contributed to were deleted. We are affiliated with them but created the pages because of historical significance. We tried our best to write them from a neutral point of view but clearly we stepped over the line.

We have now re-written the article and disclosed our affiliation. Kindly restore and let us make the appropriate changes to comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Pages that were deleted and why they should be restored:

Fazal Din Group

Notability:

• Historical significance and names of various businesses of the group were mentioned
• Credible links of local media were mentioned

Not a Promotional article:

• The website or product links were NOT mentioned for most of them except for the parent company

Sehat Online Pharmacy

Notability:

• Credible links of local media were mentioned
• It is also the first online pharmacy of Pakistan, while many other exist but none have the infrastructure or resources to cater the needs of nationwide customers. We will now be providing pictures of our huge warehouse and disclose our 0800 number to show our credibility

Not a Promotional article:

• All the facts were stated which are already easily verifiable through the links provided
• Some elements were sort of making it look promotional, they have now been omitted
• It cannot be considered an orphan article as it can be directly linked to the Fazal Din Group

I myself am affiliated with Apothecare Private Limited – Sehat’s parent company – but am not compensated by the parent company to write for Wikipedia.

It would be very highly appreciated to cooperate with you in the fullest to further contribute to the significant encyclopedic information that Wikipedia has to offer, on noteworthy individuals, events, and organizations that have made a notable historical impact in the world. We humbly ask you to restore the Sehat Online Pharmacy and Fazal Din Group articles on this very basis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.3.223 (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear JamesBWAtson

My name is Martin and I am writing to discuss with you the Protrader page which you have deleted recently. Since I have spotted deletion talk I have started to work on remaking the article which took couple days to get familiar with charges from users. I have put great work to comply with Wikipedia rules - never intended to break them - to create an article without an advertising tone and with fair amount of information. Hope that the current version (recreated) will satisfy all requirements - according to my judgment it's not that different from descriptions of other trading software applications present in Wikipedia. If the article is still somehow infringing the rules I will be happy to follow your guidance regarding corrections. However, I do not agree with some allegations, that sources like Finance Magnates or ForexCrunch are niche. Hope to hear from you. Yours sincerely, Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viamortis (talk • contribs) 11:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is very curious that this brand new version even includes the AfD template of the previous verion. I have speedied this reincarnation but salting would seem to be in order.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Velella - as I said in other discussion with you, I was rebuilding the article from AfD version. Meanwhile article was deleted and I had no time to accept edited version. So I accepted system's suggestion to recreate and AfD left there - did not want to delete it. I don't know why instead of listen to argument you try make liar of me... Viamortis (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Viamortis

• The article has been repeatedly deleted. The reasons for deletion have centred round two issues: lack of evidence of notability, and promotional nature of the article. the latest version which Viamortis created did no more than those earlier versions to show notability, and was even more promotional than those earlier versions. It was deleted by DGG. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that they appear to have returned. 2601:806:C100:BFD:FC8A:3087:5575:944F is the first I've seen and am guessing there soon will be more, if they're not here already. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I was away when you posted this message, and it has taken me a while to get round to dealing with it. However, the IP address has certainly been used for unconstructive editing, much of it apparently vandalism, and it looks very much as though it is likely to be the same editor as before, so I have blocked it for a month. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the developments at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-coi (specifically relevant diffs and links: [1], [2], and Template talk:Uw-coi-min#Speedy deletion nomination), any objections to the reapplication of a WP:T3 speedy deletion tag (or I'd again suggest an expedited WP:G7 tag on your part) at {{Uw-coi-min}}?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have collect some links at my sandbox, related to Elvey's behavior, on this subject. --Adam in MO Talk 05:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you recently deleted the LifeCell International article per CSD G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". My only involvement with the article was moving it from a different article name recently. But before I did the rename, I had a quick look at the article and sources, and it looked fair and had decent source coverage. Can you have a look at the version that was originally deleted, is it a different version from the last deletion? Do you think it's worth pursuing WP:DELREV? -- intgr [talk] 11:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There was, as far as I could see, even less there to establish notability than in the version which was subject to the AfD discussion. Speedy deletion criterion G4 is subject to widely differing interpretations by different editors, with some thinking the article has to be almost identical, others taking the view that a new version which essentially says the same things and does not address the issues which led to deletion is close enough. There is no point in a deletion review: if you really think it's worth trying to save the article, let me know, and I will undelete it. However, it will go back to a new AfD, and I think the likelihood of deletion again is high. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok, I probably didn't look into the sources thoroughly enough. If as you say "the likelihood of deletion again is high", then it's probably not worth bothering with. Thanks :) -- intgr [talk] 20:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a TfD discussion that has been open for more than 7 days (at this point 13). There have been plenty of !votes on both sides and it is going to need an admin to sort them all out and decide the final outcome. For the record, I am involved with this discussion as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I see exactly what you mean, but I am reluctant to close the discussion. To me, the argument that templates should lead editors to articles, not, as these do, to other templates, is convincing, so I would support deletion, but at a quick skim through the discussion, it does not look to me as though there is a consensus to delete. In the past I have closed discussions with a "close" that I don't personally agree with, because I have accepted that there is a clear consensus, whatever my view, but in this case, where the discussion is fairly long, with strong views on both sides, reviewing the discussion would take a significant amount of work, and very probably the end result would be doing something I don't agree with, I don't feel inclined to go for it, so I'm afraid I'm going to pass on this one. (By the way, no harm was done by "lighting this up" to be sure, but it wasn't actually necessary. I had looked at the discussion, but had to go off and do something else, so my reply to you was pending, rather than forgotten.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, you are the second to pass on this one so far. :) I don't think anyone wants to touch it with a 10 1/2 foot pole. :) Mlaffs and I already have a "Plan B" ready to roll out if the discussion is closed as "Delete". So, either way it goes, I won't be too terribly upset.

I do keep forgetting that we have that new notification system now that tells you how many notifications you have, except for which the last one was. So, goof on my part there with the "lighting it up". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I think that you deserve this for dealing with my WP:CB on the Exeter Metro and Skovaji. I won't do it again! RailwayScientist (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@RailwayScientist: Do you know, after over nine years as a Wikipedia editor, including over five years as an administrator, I had never come across WP:CB, and here's an almost brand new editor pointing me to it. Most editors who get indefinitely blocked within a couple of months of creating their account are just vandals, spammers, or other kinds of totally unhelpful editors, but some are actually people who got off to a bad start, but could be good editors if they are given a second chance. I think you are one of those who could be a good editor: that's why I unblocked you. Please prove me right! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll do my best! RailwayScientist (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, this is Dave Felmer. You delt with my dispute on here a month ago that led to me being put on the 1RR rule. It's now been over 30 days since I was placed on this and since then I've done my best to ensure I don't edit war and engage in talk sections before making any changes etc and I feel I've really settled done and am not disruptive anymore (a product that I feel stemmed from my total inexperience on wikipedia having only started editing this summer). Anyway, I recall you saying that if I were to learn my trade here and maybe come back in a month that we could maybe remove the 1RR, so I was wondering whether that was possible now.

Please let me know. Davefelmer (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

He only wants it removing so he can start edit warring again, and you can see here that his behaviour has not significantly changed. He has engaged at WikipediaProject Football and on some talk pages, but took pretty much nothing away from the conversation with Struway as his first action was to immediately enter again into blanking portions of the honour sections of PFC Sofia. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why you delete this article(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayak_Bepari). Please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayak Bepari (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Because there is no indication that the subject of the article is significant enough to justify being the topic of an article in an encyclopaedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

But why you can't give me any notification,when the article has been many reliable sources.Can you please restore it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayak Bepari (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Usually, I would notify the creator of an article in a situation such as this, but in this case the creator had already been informed that the page was nominated for deletion. I don't check every editor who has edited an article and inform them all.
2. No, the article did not have "many reliable sources": it had three sources, none of which was a reliable independent source. It is clear that the article was an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion, created and largely edited by two accounts which are both clearly operated by one or more people with a conflict of interest. I also see no evidence that you satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi how was this vandalism? --166.172.59.33 (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't vandalism. Maybe you honestly thought that Wikipedia accepts articles about subjects such as some insignificant girl, that some anonymous person thinks is pretty. However, it was never going to be accepted as an article, whether it was vandalism or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

why did you delete my account jamesstevens97 ?? you say i was vandalizing when i clearly wasn't, i was updating my local football teams wiki, its people like you that stop small people from learning wiki and using it to CORRECTLY update pages and not 'spam or vandalize' as you suggest, which i clearly didnt. okay so new people aren't gonna be amazing at editing wiki like me but its no reason to ban them! i now cant access my account which i have made dedicated edits on so i think i will give wiki a miss if you are just going to delete peoples accounts when they are doing nothing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesstevenswwfc (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jamesstevenswwfc: Can you clarify exactly what you are saying I have "deleted"? Do you mean that I have blocked an earlier account you used? If so, you must have made a mistake in its title, as there is no record of there ever having been an account called jamesstevens97. I have also checked my block log back to April, and in that period I have never blocked any account the name of which contained the string "stevens". Please do let me know what the name of the account was, so that I can check what I did and why, and get back to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jamesstevenswwfc: With some more searching, I have found an account JamesStevens97, which has edited four of the articles that you have edited, so probably that is what you mean. However, that account has never been blocked, no page it has ever edited has ever been deleted, and I have never edited any page that account edited, nor had any other contact with the account, as far as I know. I have no idea why you think I have, as you put it, "deleted" your account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding John Collee, I see that the person himself has been editing. For what it's worth, for his article, this is the last revision before he started editing it. We could revert back to that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Erik: I don't think we have to be as drastic as that. Looking fairly briefly at the changes since that edit, the only things I saw that seemed to show an unacceptable conflict of interest were some external links and a very small amount of rather promotionally-worded text, all of which have been removed. It may be that more thorough checking would reveal further problems: for example, I wonder about some of the references, but at present I don't have more time to spend on it. You clearly know far more both about the article and about its subject than I do, so your judgement of whether any further changes are needed may well be better than mine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned up a little further, removing unsourced statements. I replaced primary-sourced details with secondary sources. (I had meant to clean the article up a bit last time Collee edited it, but I never got around to it and just noticed the second spurt of edits.) I can look for more secondary sources, as I haven't researched this person for a few years. Any feedback you have? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted because I was told after the last deletion that if I spent some time learning how to write a good encyclopedia article and waited some time that I could repost the article with more citations. It has been almost a year. I have collected more information and have added twenty-two external links. I live in Louisiana where this product is made and it is a very popular product. It is very well known and as you can see from the amount of outside articles, reviews, and profiles from all over the United States, people are talking about Louisiana Lightning. This is NOT an advertisement. It does not read like and advertisement.

How is this page any different from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_McKenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan%27s_Creek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Smoky_Distillery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiler%C3%ADas_y_Crianza_del_Whisky_S.A.

In fact, how is this Louisiana Lightning page any different from any of the listings on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whisky_brands#American_whiskey

I do not understand....

I do not know what the four tildes are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix25782000 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Phoenix25782000: It must be frustrating to come to Wikipedia keen to contribute, to do what you believe is correct, and then to see your work deleted repeatedly. I am sorry to have contributed to that experience. However, I shall try to explain some of the points involved, and answer the points you have raised.

1. Yes, you were told that "in six months maybe after the article gets deleted, you'll know how to float one which meets Wikipedia's standards". I can't read the mind of the editor who made that suggestion, but I think it is very likely that he had in mind that in those six months you would have further experience of editing Wikipedia, so that you would learn what is acceptable by Wikipedia standards, rather than that just by going away for some months and not touching Wikipedia you would somehow develop the ability to create an article which was acceptable. 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. I don't know whether you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia generally, and this article just happened to be the one you started with, or whether you are only here to create this one article. If you are interested in contributing in other areas, then I suggest you will have a much better chance of having a successful time here if you take that advice.
2. You have, as you said, added a number of external links. I have had a look at them. Many of them are: the company's own web site, which is not an independent source, blogs, which are not reliable sources, sites advertising the product or in other ways not independent, pages merely mentioning the product briefly. While the number of such links is larger than was the case the previous time you created the article, in terms of establishing notability as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, they do not seem to be of better quality, or to address the arguments raised in the deletion discussion.
3. It is natural and reasonable for a new editor to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable. Unfortunately, however, doing so is not a reliable guide. There are over five million articles on English Wikipedia, and the number of editors who are regularly involved in maintaining the quality of articles is very small in proportion to that number. Consequently, quite often articles which do not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines escape notice for a very long time. New editors who see an article deleted often say "Why is my article different from such and such an article and such and such another article", as you have done. Sometimes, the answer is "Although superficially similar, there are important differences, so that some of the articles satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, whereas yours didn't", but at other times the answer is "you are perfectly right, those articles are unsuitable, and will be deleted too. Thanks for drawing them to our attention." I have looked at the first of the articles you mention, and it shows no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria, so I have proposed it for deletion. I may check the others later.
4. Wikipedia's criterion for speedy deletion as a repost of a page previously deleted as the result of a deletion discussion exists in order to prevent waste of editors' time by having a new deletion discussion which just repeats the same reasons as were given in the previous discussion. If you want me to, I shall restore the deleted article. However, if I do that, it will be taken back to Articles for deletion, and it seems to me very likely that the result will be that people's time will be taken up with the same points being made as before, and the article will be deleted. It's up to you whether you think that spending time on defending the article under such circumstances would be a productive enough use of your time to be worthwhile.
5. A "tilde" is this little thing: ~ . Since you say you live in Louisiana, you are presumably using a US keyboard, in which case it is in the top left hand corner, with the shift key needed. If you type ~~~~ at the end of a talk page message, the Wikimedia software will automatically convert it to a signature, which not only shows your user name, so that other editors know who posted the message, but also includes a link to your talk page, making it easy for other editors to contact you if they wish to.

I hope what I have written will be helpful to you. Please do feel welcome to contact me again if you have more to say about this, or if you have anything else to ask me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Asking because one of your blocks was mentioned at WP:OP. At this OP request User:Zzuuzz suggests a regular anonblock of the /20. Unless there is objection I'm planning to go ahead with anonblock of 45.33.128.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). This 'Puffin' mobile browser offered by Cloudmosa might be analogous to the Opera Mini Browser. Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you planning to keep the indef for Spliff Joint Blunt? Based on this comment it's pretty likely he has socked in the past. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes, that edit is, in fact, one of several reasons why I think that there is likely to be previous history of sockpuppetry, and so I am not going to lift the indefinite block. However, if you disagree and prefer to restore the original block I will accept that. I can't find any clear evidence that AndresHerutJaim is the true master, but it is entirely possible: admitting sockpuppetry but pretending the admission is just a joke is exactly the kind of thing that I have seen long-term persistent sockpuppeteers do in the past. It is a kind of thumbing their nose at us: "yes I'm socking, but you can't stop me" which again is exactly what the diff you link to seems to be saying. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I have no intention of restoring the original block. Just asked if you were because if you did, I was going to impose editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

hey. sorry about that James. I was going to add info saying what film the reference (GET THE CHOPPA) was from etc. but I did not know that I was breaking the rules for vandalism. FORGIVE ME SENPAI PLZ. :'( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurienator (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Laurienator: It isn't a matter of knowing "rules". If you honestly made the edits you have made (both at Sir Roger Manwood's School and at Laurienator) and didn't think there was anything wrong with them, then you are so out of touch with what Wikipedia is that you really shouldn't be editing here, and if you continue in the same way you will probably be blocked pretty soon. If, however, you knew full well that you were vandalising, then you are perfectly capable of deciding not to do the same any more, and you are welcome to start making useful contributions if you would like to. Whether what you posted was a reference to a film or not, it was nonsense. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear JamesBWatson, I am trying to understand why you removed my content about signs standoffs and spacer. The pages is about standoffs and spacers for computers and the reference link for that content is a website for a business that sells these types of standoffs.

My content contributed by explaining the uses of standoffs in signage and displays and I referenced a site that sells these same types of spacers and standoffs. I realize the link is not going to pose any value for SEO. It was a valid contribution to explain to people about the different types of standoffs and spacers that exist.

Best Regards, Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsstandoffs (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mbsstandoffs:

1. We need a reference other than a link to the web site of a business that sells them, both because a business link does not show any independent evidence of significance of the concept and because links to business sites tend to be put into articles to attract potential customers to the web site, i.e. in order to use Wikipedia for spam.
2. I have looked at the page you gave as a "reference", and it does not support the statement to which you attached the "reference": nowhere in the page you linked to does it say that the spacers advertised can be "used to mount signage for businesses", nor that they "can be used to hang pictures and displays in doctors offices and many other locations". A so-called reference which gives no support for the statement to which it is attached is not a reference.
3. Your username makes it clear that you are working for the company to whose site you linked. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy: an account may not represent a business or other organisation, and so you must not continue to edit using the account. Also, editing for the purpose of promotion or advertising is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Watson (I read your intro and I'm a Holmes fan, so Watson it is)—you helped me a while ago regarding removing a contribution I made, when I accidentally contributed with an IP address. Now I have returned because I am wondering if it would be feasible and hopefully none too annoying to request hiding (not oversighting) from public view most, maybe 90% of my edits, eventually including this one? I'm asking because I have a few old edits from 2011 that I would like to use as "proof" for outside reasons, which would be viewed by the public, but many of my other edits, at least those providing information on my location and where I live and other topics, I am hoping can be hidden for good. I have less than 70 edits total, I believe. If this is possible, then I would consider this account "archived" and would never use it again, and I would create another account for any future random questions I like to ask on the wp:refdesk boards if something is bothering me. :) As of this moment, I'm simply looking for an answer by an admin, and what you think. Thank you so much for your time in this matter! Reflectionsinglass (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reflectionsinglass: Wikipedia's policy on revision deletion is very strict about using revision deletion only in very limited circumstances, because the nature of Wikipedia is that there is openness about every edit, and exceptions should be restricted to a few situations where there are very strong reasons. I have looked at a sample of your edits, and while I can see some that I can understand you may not like to have associated with yourself in real life, I did not see any that seemed to me to fall under the provisions of that policy. The policy covers such things as "Blatant copyright violations, Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, non-public, personal, or private information". If you can identify specific edits that might qualify, I can look at them, but on the basis of the sample I saw, I certainly don't think there is any question of hiding 90% of your edits, as you suggest. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Watson, I really appreciate your looking into this. I would definitely be going for "non-public, personal, or private information", although I suppose this is up for debate since my original intention with this account was to attain and maintain privacy, and I've done so for the most part—but coming into play now would be a deliberate decision on my part to point (somewhat publicly) to a couple of threads I made, and that act would make the comments I've left here more public. Whittling it down, what do you think about removing these edits, including reasoning behind requested removal:

• 20 March 13 – 3 edits in a row: My location [3] (this is more specific than general locations mentioned elsewhere)
• 28 November 2010 to 1 December 2010 – 5 edits in a row: Medical discussion [4]

That should knock it down to about 12% of my contributions :) Anyway, I'm very grateful for your time and I'm open for discussion before proceeding with any formal request. Reflectionsinglass (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reflectionsinglass: I have removed the edits you mentioned from your editing history.

I think I should make it perfectly clear what that means, to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Your comments, complete with your signature, are still visible in old versions of the pages, but they are not listed in your editing history, so nobody will find them from looking at your history. The chances of one of the people you have in mind just happening to be looking through those particular old revisions of that particular page from several years ago are so remote that it is virtually certain that they will not see your comments. The only way of completely hiding your comments, so that they are not visible at all, would be to delete all the versions of the pages from when you posted until the sections were archived. I checked one of the cases in detail, and found that your comment remained in the page for a few hours short of five days, during which time there were 569 edits, most of them not connected at all to your edits. I couldn't possibly justify permanently hiding a large number of other discussions, including hundreds of messages from other editors on other topics, just to make sure your comments are totally invisible. However, that shouldn't be necessary, since, as I have already said, nobody can find the edits from your editing history, and it would be a remarkable coincidence if someone relevant should just happen to go searching around in exactly the right part of the long past history of those old pages. (You can easily check that the edits are not listed in your editing history, by clicking on the links you gave in your message above.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reflectionsinglass: One other point which I didn't think to mention. The listing for those edits in the history of the pages in question does not show your username, so to see them an editor would have to be actually looking at old versions of one of the pages, not just looking at the page history. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining everything, it didn't even occur to me that this could affect 500+ other edits in one example. However, what you've done is perfect and helps me greatly, just to retain a little bit more privacy. I really appreciate your patience and understanding! Thank you again! Reflectionsinglass (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat has been disruptively wikihounding my edits,(tool results) and been making personal attacks on talk pages, none of which he ever edited before I edited them. Even though it is obvious that none of his version has been accepted.

• "anyone who reads the article on Sanal Edamaruku and then comes here to say that "I have read their articles and they are not ciritics of any religion" is totally lying his ass off. Simple as that. The only other explanation is that the reader in question did not understand simple English, which of course will lead to competence issues"[5] - A page he never edited before and his discussion is rather supporting the ongoing WP:BLPCAT violation.

• "Are you high or something like that? I mean I do not want to call this attitude brainless but it kinda is."[6]

• [7]- because three reliable sources also included writer from India, it is not reliable and non-neutral to him.

Not to mention his removal of sourced content, that he WP:DONTLIKE,[8][9], Twinkle Rollback abuse,[10][11] misleading "minor edit" marking.[12]

Since your block, he has been warned many times for edit warring,[13][14][15] personal attacks,[16] false "minor edit" marking,[17] etc.[18]

Since he is aware of all guidelines and knows that not everyone has time to watch over his disruption, I thought of reporting his attitude here since it was you who had blocked him last time for a week.[19] D4iNa4 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do see some problems with FreeatlastChitchat's editing, but I also see considerable problems with your editing, and to a large extent FreeatlastChitchat's objections to your editing are justified. For example, to claim that H. L. Mencken and Sanal Edamaruku were not critics of religion was, frankly, absurd. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I went by the sources and their own articles as well. H. L. Mencken could be a critic, but Sanal Edamaruku is living person and is described as a rationalist and not as critic of religion or anti religion. Which source say that he is religious critic or if he calls himself as one?

And Freeatlastchitchat's edit warring on other article has probably violated three reverts.[20][21][22] D4iNa4 (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

IP address user 70.51.171.198[23] has been vandalizing the Killer Instinct character pages Black Orchid[24], Jago[25] and Fulgore[26] since October and shows no signs of stopping.68.75.25.99 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The first step should be to explain to the editor why you disagree with his or her editing. Nobody has done that at all: there has never been any message posted to User talk:70.51.171.198, has there even been an edit summary explaining why his/her edits have been reverted. If and when the editor has been told of the concerns you have, and it makes no difference to the editing, then we can consider what other steps may be worth taking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just chiming in, all the content 70.51.171.198 has been adding to those pages is explicitly false, contradicting in-game content and sourced pages. Furthermore, it's not like this is the first time; he's used multiple IPs to add this same information for years, and many of his past IPs have been blocked for this. In fact, you yourself actually blocked one of these IPs just earlier this year. See: [27], [28], [29], and [30]. At this point, any suggestion of good faith is long gone. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. That makes a considerable difference. I shall look at the possibility of protecting the articles and/or blocking IP addresses. Thanks for the help. Knowing a bit of the earlier history is really helpful, instead of just knowing about the most recent editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to deal with it now, but I'll try to get back onto it tomorrow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have now looked at this in more detail. Unfortunately, there is no really effective way of dealing with this. I could block the IP address now, but that is likely to be fairly ineffective, as the editor has not edited for several days, and is likely to turn up on a different IP address. Blocking ranges of IP addresses is out of the question, because the editor has used IP addresses so widely scattered that huge numbers of other IP addresses would be blocked too. I would semi-protect the articles affected, if it weren't for the fact that there are many other IP edits from other editors on those articles. If you see more of the same, and let me know while it is happening, I can jump in and block whatever IP address is doing it at the time: that will not completely stop the problem, but it may significantly reduce it. Apart from protecting the articles, that is really all I can do. If you do contact me again about this, please refer back to this discussion, because if a significant time has passed I am unlikely to remember one of the large number of such cases I deal with. (If the original post above had linked to the block that I placed in January, my initial response would have been very different.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Lock the pages for months or that only registered users can edit them.[31][32]-108.82.6.14 (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have done that. I am not 100% happy about doing it, but the substantial majority of IP editing on the articles in recent months has been a combination of this vandal's edits plus other IP editors reverting the vandalism, so the likely amount of collateral damage is not all that great. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have to log off now (must work!!) - if you have time can you check the edits of User49.150.169.136, e.g. to Malou de Guzman. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Not sure whether it's vandalism or not, but it's certainly unhelpful. I've posted a message to the IP talk page about it, and I shall revert the edits, using a different account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Thanks. I'll drink it this evening after dinner. JamesBWatson3 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

You ask me what are planning my sanbox. To education, physics and electrincs simulations, learn main the laws of physics, but very accessibly
But why are you ask. SmallTed — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallTed (talk • contribs) 17:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@SmallTed:

I find it difficult to understand what you say, as it is not expressed in coherent English, but it looks as though you are saying that the page is for your own study, to help you learn. I asked because it did not look as though the page was related to work for the encyclopaedia, and I wondered if you were using Wikipedia as a web host to hold a page for your own use, rather than editing to contribute to the encyclopaedia. If that is so, then the page should be deleted, as Wikipedia is not a free web host. However, rather than immediately deleting the page, I asked you what your intention was, so that you would have a chance to explain if in fact you did have a good use for it in connection with contributing to the encyclopaedia. In view of what you have said above, I shall now delete the page, but if it really is in some way aimed at contributing to the encyclopaedia, please explain how, and I can restore the page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback on this article.

At 15:06 on 13 October 2015, Alex Sanz provided permissions-en@wikimedia.org permission to publish content from http://www.AlexSanz.com under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. This permission had previously been extended to http://www.muckrack.com/alexsanz.

Similar articles exist on Wikipedia for journalists who are equally notable, including https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Aqui, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stehr, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micah_Ohlman, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Hughes, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Schneider_(news_anchor) and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Hall-Brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PressScribe (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@PressScribe: As you have probably seen by now, I have restored the article and nominated it for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion. I have been unable to find any evidence at all that Sanz satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Maybe some time when I have time I will look at the other articles you mention, and see whether you are right in saying that there subjects are "equally notable" as Sanz: if you are right, then they can be deleted too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the attention I am sorry for my English. My intension was make wiki page to teach young about electronics and explain uses NGpace, Newton engine than it is not difficult. To make this page requre more time, and I wont to do small step. But You have right, it may will not be encyclopaedia, and my work will be deleted. Now:

1. You may deleter this page and you will the right,
2. There's a possibility to keep this page and step by step make it is;
3. When You decide delete this page, give me choose to save work

I really thank you for lost time

Best regards, smallted — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallTed (talk • contribs) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@SmallTed: I'm afraid once again I am finding it difficult to understand your English, but I think you are saying that you wish to keep the page for a limited time, to use for teaching young people, off Wikipedia, and then have it deleted. If so, then the answer is that Wikipedia is not a web host to be used for purposes unrelated to work for the encyclopaedia, even for a limited time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What is this place and why the CluBot NG reported User:Kmatterhorn here. He was only creating a book article.--Galaxy Kid (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Galaxy Kid: The editor did not create the article: he or she edited an article which already existed. Also, he or she repeatedly removed content without giving any reason, and repeatedly added content which was copied from another source, blatantly infringing copyright, and edit-warred. What aspect of the editing prompted CluBot NG to report the editor I don't know, but it was a perfectly good report on an editor with several problems, which needed to be dealt with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What is TB2; Only bots can report users here; Are there any other such like TB1? --Galaxy Kid (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Galaxy Kid: An interesting question. There is no Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB1, as you can confirm if you click on that red link. Years ago I wondered why the bot-report page for AIV was called "TB2", but long ago I got so used to that title that I just forgot about the question. When I saw your question about it here, though, I looked at the history of the page, and I found that when the page was first created, back in 2006, it used to be edited by a bot called "Tawkerbot2", so TB2 must be an abbreviation for that. Tawkerbot2 was operated by an editor who used the username "Tawker", and there were also Tawkerbot, Tawkerbot3, and Tawkerbot4, but they all stopped editing years ago. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear James, Thanks your messages. being a new users, I am though unsure how the content that was reverted back is a promotional content. My interest in updating an old wikipedia page Travelyaari was obvious as the information there was outdated and not current and hence being someone who knows the information, I felt it was right to provide them as other organization / company pages on Wikipedia is made. If I missed anything please cite the link to how those pages are non-promotional but my edit were promotional Aks vicky (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The article was subjected to extensive editing in a short period by two new accounts: between the two of them, the two accounts made more edits in a little over 24 hours than had been made to the article in over two and a half years. Some of the content added was blatant marketing copy, while other edits added links which appeared to serve the purpose of attracting potential customers to various web pages associated with the business. It was entirely clear that this was a concerted effort to edit the article on behalf of the company, for promotional purposes. The new version of the article read more like an advertising brochure than like an objective, neutral account. After the promotional editing was reverted, an anonymous editor, editing from the city in which the company is based, restored it. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was another attempt by the company to use Wikipedia for advertising purposes, most probably by one of the two editors who had done so before. Most probably it was the editor who had just previously edited, namely you, which was why I posted a message to your talk page about it, though of course I can't be certain of that.

I fully understand what you mean about information being "outdated and not current", but there is a considerable difference between neutral updating of information and adding promotional or marketing content.

Unfortunately, there are many other articles about companies which are full of spam posted on behalf of those companies. When it is noticed it can be removed, but often it remains for a long time before it is seen by any of the editors who work at preventing Wikipedia from being used for advertising. The presence of advertising content in some articles does not justify its presence in others.

It seems likely that you are working for the company you have been editing about. If so, you should read Wikipedia's guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. Also, if you are working for the company, you must say so. That is not optional: Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure if editing is associated with any paid work, whether as an employee, a contractor, or otherwise. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

	Travelyaari revert
	Please let me know how a wikipedia page talking about a company or an organization can be updated with latest facts and figures than stale content. Aks vicky (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see notice of any proposed deletion on that article nor do I see any deadlinks. That notice you left me was in error. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: You "fail to see" the proposed deletion notice because it has been removed by Rhododendrites. One link is currently dead: http://www.annaolson.ca/page/about_anna gives me "Error 404" when I try to access it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

All you had to do was great the link for the "About Anna" section of her website. As well, you can use archived version of that as well. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)`

@Fishhead2100: Sorry, what does it mean to "great" a link? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

3 years ago I wrote an article entitled Powerball Golf to raise awareness and promote the sport around Durham and it's University, and hopefully spread records, results and history to play Nationwide.

You deleted it for so called 'vandalism'.

I would like to know why exactly it was deleted, and if it could be reinstated, or indeed if I could have the transcript back to post again in another format.

Thanks

JonnyClark1990 (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"Vandalism" may not have been the best deletion reason to give, but I gave that because the article was viewed at a deletion discussion as being a hoax. However, I have now changed the deletion log reason to reference that discussion, which is really a better way of explaining the deletion, since it enables one to see the reasons given in the discussion.

Using Wikipedia to "to raise awareness and promote" anything is against Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a medium for publicising, promoting, or advertising anything.

Neither at the time of the deletion discussion nor now has there been any evidence that this game is notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopaedia article. I have searched, and failed to find any mention of the game in any reliable source anywhere. Every appearance is that it was a game made up by a group of friends, and in all probability unknown outside their circle. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about just anything, and topics which fail to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not qualify to be subjects of articles.

Assuming that by "to post again in another format" you mean to post again in Wikipedia, the answer is "no", and will continue to be "no" unless and until the subject comes to be sufficiently prominent as to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia policy is that once a page has been deleted as the result of consensus at a deletion discussion, if it is reposted to any Wikipedia page, it may be speedily deleted without notice, unless the reasons for deletion are no longer valid, which is clearly not so in this case. If, however, you mean that you wish to post it to somewhere other than Wikipedia, let me know, and I can email it to you, provided you enable Wikipedia email on your account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Raising awareness is not a sufficient reason to have that article on Wikipedia. If you can cite and show its notability, than it might warrant sticking around. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please userfy article and talk page i'll fix whatever issues this person won Miss World America 2015 [33] and is notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You are 100% welcome to create a new article on the subject, but you can't "fix" the issue which led to it being deleted by having it userfied and editing it, as it would still be created by a blocked editor in defiance of a block. Nothing we can do guarantees that a blocked editor who has used sockpuppets will not continue to do so, but experience indicates that one of the most effective ways of making it less likely is for them to find that whatever they post disappears and does not come back. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately without admin privileges I am both unable to see the dispute and who the editor in question was. Based on your response it looks like there is a workable draft. If possible, could you userfy the page to my space anyways. Instead of restoring the page history to the main space, I'll restore an edited version and ping you to delete the userfy draft out of my space as soon as possible. As an editor I prefer to work on an established backbone with categories and templates included, makes it easier for me. It will be the first thing I work on when I log in next. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you have had past issues with this user, I hsve came to you. He put a false warning on my talk page about sources. Only to realize that no edit of mine has been reverted, so this warning is completely random. You may want to have a little word with him, thanks. 84.92.163.184 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@84.92.163.184, Also you put in my user page a false warning about mistake in HolidayJet's page that I never made.--The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Repected sir, I'm Babitaarora. I sent you an email, but you didn't reply me. I still say that I've never done anything wrong (sockpuppetry) nor i did paid editing. You have given another chance to many users, just because they admitted their mistake. I didn't do anything wrong, so why should I accept the mistake. My mistake, just so that I didn't tell you about the use of same device. I want to continue my job. I promise I willn't give you a chance to complain. Please, please give me a chance so I could prove myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.58.160 (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I will reply to this on the talk page of your account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed Davefelmer's unblock request and have asked for your comments. Please could you take a look when you have a minute? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have edited many Indian film and television related articles, Babitaarora never spammed or promoted any non-notable actor. On the other hand, lots of unblocked users are getting away with paid editing. I have managed to stop spammers with the help of Cyphoidbomb, MERC X.

I was thinking what you were thinking--She is unrelated to other batch and her recent edits don't show anything suspicious. I read your message in her talk page and Bbb23's page. I have come across talk page of IP-vandals where old messages of Babita's warning is present. Whether they are Brother-Sister or not, only they know. There is excessive spammers and promotional edit in Bollywood and Indian television articles. Without her help, we will suffer. She is one of the most-active Indian female Wikipedian after Netha Hussain and Mala chaubey according to this list Wikipedia:WikiProject India/List of Indian Wikipedians by number of edits. They may not be siblings. In North/East/West and Central India first cousins are also treated as brothers and sisters. Chander claims to have the surname Sachdeva while Babita's surname is Arora. Both surnames are Punjabi. Indians living in cities do allow their nephews and niece to stay with them when they take admission in city university/college. Her block is a big jolt to Wikiproject India.

Going through her talk page history i couldn't find any recent warning by anybody. If any administrator can show me that previously Babita was warned for writing promotional content, spamming, edit-warring or disruptive editing, it would be very helpful.

Actually in India, parents don't purchase separate laptops and PCs for their kids, if they are from middle income group. So, even if Babitaarora is unblocked, she cant stop her possible cousin Chander from editing, and she can be blamed again.The Avengers (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Avengers: Thanks for those comments, which include several interesting points. Concerning the last point you mention, of course you are right in saying that she can't prevent her cousin, brother, or whatever he is from editing: but unless she lets him use her account, that is true whether she is unblocked or not, and there is no reason to suppose she will let him do so. Yes, she may get blamed again, and unfortunately there is no way we can protect her against that risk, but I think we should give her every chance we can, and keeping her blocked on the basis that someone else may do something we wouldn't like is not reasonable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Yes, James I was planning on working on the Computational Anatomy history and document the contributions so it can enter Wikipedia. I want to let my publishing colleagues two or three add to it once it has its sections.

What is not consistent accordint to your comments? I haven't yet gone back and put it in passive voice but will. It is certainly documented via reliable sources.

thank-you Mim.cis (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw your post on my Liver Trust article, I'm not paid I'm just a volunteer whose been asked to make a page to give people some information on the chairty and this was the user name I was told to use. As for promotional I can see you've edited some bits and I did not realise there was a polciy to violate. As for sources, sources outside their website is non existant so I used what sources I had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLT298858 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you've done to this article. Your edit summary is so long that only part of it shows up on the history. It was made PC so that IPs could edit it - you know, "Wikipedia - the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" - but since your change I'm getting a "registered editors only" message". Please put it back the way it was. 188.222.58.239 (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

For years the article has been subject to vandalism. It has been protected repeatedly, but each time the protection expires the vandalism returns. Attempts to replace semi-protection with "pending changes" have been tried, but each time the attempt has failed. "Pending changes" stops the vandalism from being visible to non-logged-in readers of the encyclopaedia, but it neither prevents logged-in readers from seeing a damaged version of the article nor prevents the endless waste of time for editors who revert the vandalism edits, time which could be more fruitfully used on other tasks. If you wish to edit and find you can't, then I suggest you do what I did years ago when I found I couldn't edit because vandals had caused the IP address of my local library to be blocked: I created an account. It takes less than a minute to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think that registered editors see anything different from everybody else when reading articles? I still don't know what you have done to this article. Please provide the complete version of your long edit summary. 188.222.58.239 (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

1. What makes me think that registered editors see anything different from everybody else when reading articles? Well, I first knew that years ago, when I read about how pending changes works, and since then I have confirmed it by looking at an article that has changes pending without logging in, and then logging in and looking at the same article again. A user who is not logged in sees the last version before any changes which are currently pending, but a logged-in established registered editor sees the version after those changes.
2. The full version of my protection log entry, an abbreviated version of which appears in the editing history as an edit summary, is visible here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just discovered something which you may or may not find interesting. Thinking about what you have said prompted me to look through all the recent entries in the pending changes log. I found that almost all of the articles which have recently had pending changes set have subsequently had semi-protection put in place, because it was found that pending changes just wasn't working. I knew that pending changes failed in some articles (as, for example, in the giant panda article) but I had never before known that it failed in almost all articles where it was applied. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A consensus was reached some years ago to remove Pending Changes from all articles. At the Village pump the community decided that indefinite semi - protection of articles would not be permitted in the future. Please apply a time limit to this. 188.222.58.239 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"Would not be permitted"? Changing the five pillars? When and where was that decided? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 121#Permanent Semi Protect/pending changes protect. 188.222.58.239 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

What I see there is a failure to get consensus for a proposal that "Pages with high levels of vandalism should be permanently semi-protected and no requests should be made to remove the semi-protection". Failing to get consensus for that is very different from getting consensus that "indefinite semi-protection of articles would not be permitted in the future". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The clear consensus there was that semi - protection should be limited. There isn't even the excuse for your action that somebody asked for permanent protection. Rather than having a big debate at ANI why not just apply a time limit? 188.222.58.239 (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you deleted that brand new page that I created today. Could you please explain the reason, I dodn't understand... I am new to Wiki editing world. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarkostar (talk • contribs) 21:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Monarkostar (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The original article on the subject was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizin Fighting Federation, and there was a very clear consensus that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I would say that the new version if anything had even less indication of notability than the earlier one. While some problems with articles can be solved by editing to improve the article, no amount of editing an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. 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) 21:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

As you have commented on his talk page about the ANI report and know about the SPI also. This guy continues to make personal attacks combined with inserting unreliabe websites. --The Avengers 17:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for 48 hours. Let's see if that gets the message across. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Keeping me under control Dat GuyWiki (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi James,

I would like to make it clear that Shelagh McDonagh was only trying to help me out with creating a Wiki page for me, so I am linked to the creative people I have worked with over the years.

Unfortunately I find using Wiki very difficult to work with so my friend Shelagh kindly has offered to help with getting a profile that ties in with other artists on Wiki.

Be so grateful if your colleagues could help her to achieve page creation.

Thank you so much

Kind Regards

Devlin Crow Film Director and Artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devlin crow (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Baddies need Blocking Thanks. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Why you have again deleted my article on Appsource please don't do it..this wasn't meant for promotion and wasn't in the grounds of conflict of interest.Please consider this as a request and don't again and again delete the article.You could have told me earlier in the talk section please consider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShivamAppsource (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@ShivamAppsource: I deleted the article because it was about a company which it failed to show was significant enough to be the subject of an article, and because it was purely promotional, whether it was "meant" to be or not. If you work for the company then you have a conflict of interest. If you don't work for the company, then you have a misleading username, because it suggests that you do; if that is the case, your username violates Wikipedia's username policy, and you must not continue to edit using it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way to retrieve the content you have deleted from my article on appsource...Please if u can mail it to.raushivam12105422@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raushivam12105422 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can email it to you, but I am unwilling to do so unless you make it clear that your purpose in asking for it is not so that you can re-post it to Wikipedia. The fact that after posting this message to me you created a new promotional article about your company strongly suggests that that is your purpose. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey I was trying to buy a book on amazon named "confessions of a war child". Tried to search about the writer as usual, found that he won Man of the year award 2015. Also found his website and his books website. So tried to see what wikipedia says about him, but I found his page was deleted! So I created new account to inform you about it. Can you visible his page? I need to know his full bio.

Also I think people like me would appreciate your support.

Here. BMK (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment here if you get a chance. Counsel2 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you Please take a look at this Thamarai (2015 TV series) has been recreated it had been deleted 3 times under a different title and that title was create protected Thamarai (TV series) including the AFD earlier and Priyamanaval (Tamil series),Priyamanaval (2015 TV series),Priyamanaval (TV series) and Priyamanaval all titles create protected which has been deleted 6 times after the AFD has been recreated here under a new title .I would greatly obliged if you can take a look.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: I think the beahaviour of the editor, repeatedly creating the same article numerous times over the course of many months, is questionable, and I am also not sure that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, I have to agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: both the article content and the references are significantly different from those in the version discussed at AfD, so speedy deletion criterion G4 doesn't apply. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your speedy response .Really value your opinion .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I reverted your deletions for all the alternative food edits I made -- for each of them there is a free link to the source - and if you check it you will see that it is non-commercial and my descriptions were accurate. I didn't add all the alternatives just one as an example - if you think they should be there - please add them in rather than delete everything. Thanks - -Geralu1 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"Concerning the claim "significantly more research is needed in this field to make it viable for the entire global population to survive using these methods" is an expression of opinion." I am sure it is accurate - but I am not sure how to correct that -- the whole article by Baum et al. is essentially an outline of research that needs to be done. I like the approach of alternative foods during a catastrophe - but I think it is pretty obvious even without the big research outline that we (everyone) is not ready when the tshtf.Geralu1 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

—UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have checked what you said in your email, and you are absolutely right. That was very helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with me and my friends making a page about a story with have made? What I'm trying to do is let the world see about our characters and you have a problem with that. Is it illegal to do this? Is it offensive that o do this? Well awnser that please!

Eligie28 Eligie28 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eligie28: It isn't what Wikipedia is for, and it's contrary to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopaedia, not a free web host for publishing original fiction. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well if I want to do that then I'm going to do that Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eligie28 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eligie28: No, it isn't "Ok". People who deliberately abuse Wikipedia can be blocked from editors by administrators, and that is what will happen to you if you continue in the same way now that the situation has been explained to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok i will delete the page as soon as possible because I'm going away to a place which internet is not available — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eligie28 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Gooday. Occasionally I come across users who are blocked. Is it in order for me - as a basic editor - to add templates such as {{sockpuppeteer}} which you added in January 2015, or is this only to be used by admins? Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: I don't know of any policy which says you can't do it, but I have known non-admin editors to be criticised for doing it. There seems to be a fairly widespread view that only administrators or clerks should add those tags. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged - that's about what I anticipated. I have seen 10-year experienced editors criticised for other aspects, such as adding new suspected socks to archived SPIs, but doing it wrongly, so I am trying to gain experience where it occurs naturally. Thanks and rgds.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I have noticed that you have blocked my account R2me2. I was wondering if you can review my appeal found here. The reason why I am not logged in is because I seem to be blocked from editing even talk pages. --61.78.237.80 (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This threat [34] is very inappropriate and demonstrates little understanding of the situation. What do you have against my clean up efforts? Legacypac (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

1. It isn't a threat.
2. If you think it's "very inappropriate and demonstrates little understanding of the situation" then it might be helpful to me to explain why. Since clearly I don't think it is inappropriate (or I wouldn't have said it) unless you tell me, I have no idea what may be considered appropriate about it; if it "demonstrates little understanding", then obviously, I can't know what the problem is, but you could help me to have more of an understanding, by telling me what it is that I have failed to understand.
3. I have nothing against your "clean up efforts", but I have everything against your attempts to undermine consensus. We have to accept consensus, whether we personally agree with it or not.
4. You may possibly find it helpful to re-read what you wrote above, and try to imagine how its tone might come across to someone else reading it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Am requesting you remove the edit summary for these edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Man_from_Earth&curid=14238656&diff=694499116&oldid=693503959 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dreidel&diff=prev&oldid=694397608 Tony Abigail (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Abigail: When revision deletion was introduced, there was a strong consensus that its use should be strictly restricted to a limited range of situations. I'm afraid I don't see any way that either of the edit summaries you mention could reasonably be thought to fall under any of the criteria listed in that policy. I do understand why you might want the second one removed, and I would very much like to remove it for you, but I don't think I could justify doing so if anyone were to challenge me on it. The only provision of the policy which is anywhere near the right area is "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material", but the policy expressly states that the criterion is not to be taken as including '"ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations', which is really what is involved here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Normally I'd let an ANI against me run its course. but Zeke and his new sock have now gotten particularly vile, accusing me of a variety of anti-Semitic slurs (no diffs, off). I'm confident I'm one post away from being called a pedophile and I'd rather not be. Can you please make a quick ruling and either block me or close the thread?.LavaBaron (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, I did not accuse LAVABARON of anti-Semitism. This is a false and outrageous charge. Another editor made this charge. I said I had not heard this and would look into it. I did so and found no evidence of this charge against LAVABARON. My comments on this on the ANI userboard are very precise about this.

You are being lobbied on a ongoing ANI complaint against LAVABARON. I think some of the complaints against him are legitimate but not the anti-Semitism charge. Does LAVABARON's note to you constitute canvassing?

One more thing, you asked me to stay off the Gaffney and CSP pages. I did so until today when I learned of new, false sock charges by LAVABARON concerning these pages which I have not edited since Oct 3.

Thanks again for unblocking me. Please dont be taken in by this misleading complaint by LAVABARON. Let the ANI take its course. Zeke1999 (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Disregard, another admin has gone ahead and indeff'ed the Baromp account. The Zeke1999 account can be blocked again via the SPI case so no need for further attention. Sorry for bothering you with this. LavaBaron (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @LavaBaron and Zeke1999: I rarely participate in discussions at ANI, because so much of it is pointless and disruptive, and a waste of time which I can better spend on more productive work. This time I made one comment, and that is where I intend to leave things. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Understandable, I only brought it up to you as a courtesy since you were the Zeke account's liberating admin. But some others have the situation handled now. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

You have recently deleted the Duma Optronics page, and I'm not sure what seemed to be the problem. I would like to retreive the previous information, with tips and guidelines about what it is that needs to be changed in order for the page to be legitimate and not break any Wikipedia rules. If necesseary, I can provide you with official documents that verify the company validity, and its contribution for pioneering fields in Laser related technology.

Thank you, EotN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleofthenorth (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eagleofthenorth: The article was proposed for deletion by Srleffler, who gave the reason as "It's not clear the company is notable. Nothing has been done to address the notability and verifiability issues since 2013." The way that a deletion proposal works is that anyone is free to contest the proposal, but if nobody does so within a week, the article is deleted. My role in this was just to perform the routine task of pressing the button to perform the deletion when the week was up. Since you have now contested the deletion, I have restored the article, and removed the deletion proposal. Since you have expressed disagreement with the deletion proposal, nobody can now have the article deleted again by that automatic process: anyone who thinks the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements would have to start a deletion discussion, to give anybody, such as you, a chance to express their opinions.

If you have not already done so, I suggest that you have a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. It covers a number of issues regarding what sort of thing is needed for articles about companies and other organisations, and also gives links to relevant policies and guidelines in case you wish to read further details. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank you very much, I appreciate the fast and kind reply. If there is a way to give you positive rating as an admin I would be happy to do so.

EotN —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleofthenorth (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 December 2015‎

@Eagleofthenorth: I now see that it has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duma Optronics. You may wish to comment there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson

Can you advise on what is needed to "cleanup" the STR, Inc. page? I made minor edits a few months back, removing a link that is no longer active for example. You also helped us out with changing the header title. I've pasted that below as a refresher.

@STRminerd: I have moved the article to STR, Inc, leaving a redirect at Smith Travel Research, so that anyone searching under the old name will still find the article. I have also added a link to it to the disambiguation page STR, which lists a large number of uses of that abbreviation. You have already made the change to the link to the website - perhaps you forgot you had done it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

STRminerd (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@STRminerd: As far as I am concerned, there is just a general feeling that the article reads as though it is written on behalf of the company, telling potential customers what services it provides, rather than reading like an outsider's reporting. In cases like this I find it difficult to pin down exactly what gives that impression: if there were anything there that looked liked outright advertising, I would have removed it myself. I'm sorry that probably isn't very helpful to you. I may come back to the article some time and see if I can find some specific changes which might help, but for the moment I will remove the conflict of interest notice, since it isn't really helpful if there is no specific change to make. (By the way, thanks for reminding me of the previous messages about this: so often people assume I will remember a discussion from months ago, and it sometimes takes quite a bit of searching before I find what they are talking about.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson Thank you very much, we appreciate the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.211.171 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Recently two of the pages we contributed to were deleted. We are affiliated with them but created the pages because of historical significance. We tried our best to write them from a neutral point of view but clearly we stepped over the line.

We have now re-written the article and disclosed our affiliation. Kindly restore and let us make the appropriate changes to comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Pages that were deleted and why they should be restored:

Fazal Din Group

Notability: 1. Historical significance and names of various businesses of the group were mentioned 2. Credible links of local media were mentioned Not a Promotional article: 1. The website or product links were NOT mentioned for most of them except for the parent company

Sehat Online Pharmacy

Notability: 1. Credible links of local media were mentioned 2. It is also the first online pharmacy of Pakistan, while many other exist but none have the infrastructure or resources to cater the needs of nationwide customers. We will now be providing pictures of our huge warehouse and disclose our 0800 number to show our credibility Not a Promotional article: 1. All the facts were stated which are already easily verifiable through the links provided 2. Some elements were sort of making it look promotional, they have now been omitted 3. It cannot be considered an orphan article as it can be directly linked to the Fazal Din Group

It would be very highly appreciated to cooperate with you in the fullest to further contribute to the significant encyclopedic information that Wikipedia has to offer, on noteworthy individuals, events, and organizations that have made a notable historical impact in the world. We humbly ask you to restore the Sehat Online Pharmacy and Fazal Din Group articles on this very basis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billynumnum (talk • contribs) 13:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping him. He's had a bit of a rough time - a lot of his students's edits were reverted as they were all from the same textbook - reverted as either spamming the textbook or as the textbook not being an RS for the subject, and a few other reasons, eg copyvio (certainly I reverted a couple of edits for that). We finally tracked him down and he's in contact now with the right people and is revising his project for next year. I hope we can get him sorted soon! I'm in email contact with him. Doug Weller (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. You restored this article couple of months ago. Your comment and vote is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! You asked me to let you know if this vandal returns, after you instituted a series of range blocks. Here is a link to that discussion This user has returned as IP 72.29.39.131. I would appreciate if you could take a look. Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 20:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As info, I asked @Sergecross73 to take a look at this as well before noticing this post. -- ferret (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV and Ferret: Thanks for letting me know. I see that the vandal has been active for quite a long time in the range 72.29.39.x, and several administrators have blocked IP addresses in that range, in most cases for just a few hours, which is of course no use at all. That's the problem with different admins dealing with it on different occasions, so that no one of them is aware of the whole picture, and that's why I encouraged you to get back to me, ScrapIronIV. I have blocked the range for a year. I first checked the editing history from that range over the last two years. There have been 100 edits, of which I would say 99 are certainly this person, and the other one is probably the same person, so the risk of collateral damage is negligible, and I see no problem with range blocking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi James,

Here is a SPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Velebit which is reported by an admin who was blocked by you for abusing his admin rights. I think we have a new case of this kind of abuse.

Thank you.

--65.220.39.95 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt at canvassing. You have clearly chosen to contact me because you think that the previous block of the editor in question may suggest that I will be likely to oppose the same editor in another, totally unrelated, case. I also see that you have made at least one other attempt at canvassing in the same case, using a different IP address. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines", and while yes the article has issues, I politely need to ask... did you look for evidence under WP:NRVE? Personally, I found plenty to show the topic as meeting WP:NF. Just wondering. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AIV. Gotta stop them baddies Thanks. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dat GuyWiki: Yes, I see what you mean, but I'm afraid I'm out of time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This amount of vandals that are reported but not blocked/warned/commented on are really bad. Could you ping any other administrator that is online? Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi James,

I appeal for some common sense.

On the Ref Desk talk page yesterday, some person impersonated me with a false appology. I am Wickwack, a person permanently banned from the Ref Desk a few years ago (only banned from Ref desk - not banned from editing Wiki articles). I do not accept the ban as legitimate or deserved (it was driven by certain folk with malicious intent) but that is irrelavent here. I used two different names when posting, but the real reason I was banned was to prevent me from making posts that disaggreed with the persons who drove the ban. If you check archives, you'll see that this is so

What is more relavent is that, ever since, often when someone does something on ref desk someone else don't like (whether violating Wikipedia rules or not), they claim it is me under yet another identity. That's a bit sad.

But yesterday we had someone, not me, pretending to be me and appologising. This can only be a troll, with real malicious intent. Unfortunately he fooled Jayron. This sort of trolling is something nobody (apart from trolls) wants on Wikipedia.

So, after posting so that Jayron and others could be assured the troll is NOT me, I deleted the whole thread so as not to feed the troll. This is the only possible action tot take.

I do understand that the ban against me means I should not have posted in response to Jayron, and in theory I should not delete the whole thread, but I appeal for some common sense from Admins. Please delete the thread. Put a stop to anyone masquerading as me.

If you have any doubts, ask yourself this - If I was the troll who began the thread, why would I want it canned? That's not what a troll would want.

NOTE: While I do not accept teh ban as ligitimate, I have not posted since the ban was enacted. The ban does not concern me. If you get anybody saying they are Wickwack trying to get the ban lifted by means of any strategy, you can assume its a troll and not me.

Wickwack1.122.69.5 (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I made what seemed to me to be the best decision in the light of such information as was available to me. I was unable to find any record of the ban, and there is no account called "Wickwack", "WickWack", "Wick wack", "Wick Wack", or anything else similar that I could find, except for an account that edited just once many years ago, and does not seem to be remotely connected. In the absence of any definite information, I assumed that you were evading a block. If you weren't, then you may have been evading a ban: I can't tell, as I don't know the exact terms of the ban. It also looked very likely that the edits on both sides (adding and removing the content) were from the same person, trolling. You must know the background to all this, so if you choose to you can probably give me the information I need, such as pointing me to when and where the ban was imposed, so that I can see what its terms are and why it was imposed. If you do that, then I can reconsider matters in light of the more complete information which will then be available to me. Unless and until you do so, I can only continue to use the best judgement possible in light of the limited information available to me now, and that judgement is that you are probably trolling.

In answer to your comment "If I was the troll who began the thread, why would I want it canned? That's not what a troll would want", I can assure you that trolls very often do exactly that kind of thing. Asking me "why" is pointless, as I am totally unable to understand the weird minds of people who have no better way of spending their time than trolling on the internet, but that doesn't matter in the least: I don't need to know why they do it in order to know that they do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. And you are the first person who volunteered to have a real look at it.

If you scan read down thru the talk page thread, you will see that Jayron has linked to the original Wickwack ban. I'm sorry, but to get the true picture, you will need to spend some considerable time, perhaps an hour, following the trail, thru the various links. A lot of it is nonsesne, e.g., folk claiming I was up to no good because my IP address keeps changing. That's nonsense - I have no control over IP's. My ISP (quite typical for ISPs) allocates users an IP address from a pool whenever we power up/boot up out PC's and our network interface initialises. Somebody claimed they had proof that I was socking because the same IP showed up once, a few weeks apart, with different names. What rubbish. Obviosly with dymanically allocated IP addresses an IP I am allocated today will be someone elses' tomorrow. Once in a while someone esle will legitimately post to Wikipedia with that IP address. Not very often, but it will happen. People do win the lottery.

The persons who drove the ban wwere very crafty, using a lot of words in lots of places that they interlinked. So what looks like "The proof that he did such and such is here<link>" is if you actually check the link there is either another link or no such proof.

Literally thousands of words have been written about my supposed vilainry and what to do about it. I'm sorry but I cannot remeber whereit all is. You will have to search and follow the trails.

HOWEVER, I here make it clear I am not appealing agianst the ban. I don't particularly care to contribute again.

I do however make frequent use of Wikipedia to get refrences to all manner of science and other subjects. Every bnow and then I take a look a Ref Desk and the talks pages to see "what the chooks are doing" as the saying goes.

By chance I looked yesterday and saw that someone had prenteded to be me with a false appology. This is quite horifying. You need to nip it in the bud. It cannot have a legit purpose and is most probably some sort of troll/gaming strategy and it may give other trolls ideas.

Best delete the Talk Page thread before too many potential trolls and/or the troll who initiated it spot it & get encouraged.

Incidentally, I did register several years ago - about 2010. I cannot remember what name I used - it wasn't Wickwack. Doesn't matter - I made a single post and was (within minutes as I recall) blocked. Somewhat later I started posting to Ref Desk again unregistered, using a couple of names. Certain folk seem to see a big conspiracy in that, but I signed off with a name, so that my posts could be searched for. I used a couple of names as a way of classifying the subject. Nothing sinister at all. If an Admin person had thought of asking me back then to use a single name only, I would have complied.

Thanks for listening. But don't forget, this is not an appeal agains the ban on me. I'm happy for the ban to stay in place. This post is to help you as you requested. You need to delete anything from people who pretend to be me - it cannot be with good intent. What legit purpose can it possibly serve??

Wickwack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.122.67.17 (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The ban was discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=558840171&oldid=558828817#WP:GAME_violations_at_Ref_Desks_using_multiple_identities_from_multiple_IP_addresses

This discussion lists 4 names. Other Talk pages etc have people assigning other names to me - probably quite a few now. However I used only two names: Wickwack & Ratbone.

Wickwack1.122.67.17 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, after I posted the message above, I did find the ban, but thanks for going to the trouble to provide me with links anyway.

Personally, I would have removed the post from the Ref Desk talk page, as it was either impersonation or ban evasion, and either way it was not useful or constructive. Also, it is clearly trolling, whether by you or by someone else. However, others have decided otherwise, and since the closing statement at the top of the section clearly says that the poster was probably not you, I don't see that it will harm your reputation. I therefore don't understand why you are so set on getting it removed. If it was you trolling, then removing it would be the worst thing to do, as it is what you want, and if it wasn't then it will really make very little difference whether it's removed or not. Before long it will be archived, and probably everyone except you and whoever posted it (whether you or not) will have forgotten it within a couple of days or so. Thus I conclude: in one possible case removing it would be bad, in the other possible case it won't make much difference, so on balance the best thing is to leave it as it is, drop the matter, and get on with doing more useful things. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I despair of Wikipedia ever doing anything sensible. This was never about my reputation. That was maliciously trashed at the time of the ban, years ago. The impersonation was not horrifying to me because of any effect on my reputation. It was horrifying because it is a) a game by a trol, and b) and inspiration for other trolls.

All this talk about "Wickwack" that is bubbling away on the talk pages continuing for years does the Wikipedia community no good. It amazes me. You admins should put a stop to it. Anytime yoy see the word "Wickwack" or similar, promptly delete it. Don't worry about me - I'm gone. Protect Wikipedia.

Wickwack120.145.161.15 (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I understand that you are considering unblocking of Rishika.dhanawade from the talk page post you wrote. Even if they have accepted to socking and confirmed to use only one account, I suspect other problems here. Apart from one school article, she has edited articles all related to Indian TV shows and mostly related to one show Qubool Hai. The article was maliciously passed as GA once but later on reverted. This whole is PR gang promoting their clients. If they are changing their IPs and not getting matched in CUs, they have upgraded to save their business. They have also reached WikiQuote and maybe more. So please do not unblock her. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Just a heads up. You have protected the Zeeshan Kazmi article due to persistent promotional vandalism by an IP hopping editor. One of those IPs is 103.255.4.35. I suspect he has now created a user name of Johnnyalberto13, judging by his sole editing history in reverting my removal of vandalism by the IP. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Back in October 2013 you temporarily blocked the above user at User talk:Jisteele for vandalism. It appears that this user has been up to the same shenanigans. Just go to his contributions here, and you will find plenty of changes in articles about towns and neighborhoods that are quite minor and not explained in an edit summary. If I am not mistaken, this fellow or girl has also been doing the same kind of edits under a different name, for which he or she has been blocked. I certainly hope you can look into this and take the necessary steps. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This one is a good example of what I am talking about. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey James, I request you to undelete TimedText:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Movin.ogg.en.srt per this. --MaranoFan (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "R2me2". Thank you. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I really am sorry if it seems like I'm having a go at you recently. I know I'm asking awkward questions and maybe just being too much of a pain in the neck, but I genuinely don't understand why some things work the way they do, and I'd like to so I can explain them to other people. There once was a time (back in 2007/8) where I thought "all deletion is evil" but nowadays I can calmly explain to someone why I deleted an article they wrote, and at least leave them with a sense of understanding. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I don't know why you might think it looked as though your were "having a go" at me: I didn't take it that way. I was just a bit puzzled by some aspects of what you said, that's all. I see that rather than wait for me to get time to look into it, you decided to take it to an admin noticeboard, where it has now been dealt with. I think it quite likely that the outcome would have been the same if I had had time to check the history earlier, as on reflection I am not as sure that the evidence was quite as strong as I previously thought, so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, even though I do think there is much more evidence than you seem willing to admit. Thanks for checking this out, and even though some aspects of how you dealt with it are different from what I would have done, the important thing is that the matter has been dealt with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

JBW, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

.

Hi. On November 23, 2010, you had deleted an article entitled, The Myth of the Negro Past, presumably about the book of the same name that the anthropologist, Melville Herskovits, had written in 1941. I was trying to find out why that article was deleted at the time, as I am trying to avoid duplicating the same mistakes that led to its original deletion. Please advise me. Thank you... Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stevenmitchell: Yes, the article was about the book by Melville Herskovits. It was nominated for speedy deletion by an editor called Chzz, as he or she considered it to be promotional. Reviewing the article, I found it contained various pieces of non-neutral language such as "this innovative work", "rich heritage", and so on, which was no doubt why I accepted the deletion nomination. I would think it would be easy enough to write an article about the book without using such non-neutral language. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you for your quick recall. I too - based on what you are remembering - would think it reasonably easy to do what you suggest. Thank you for your ability to reply so quickly and for your insights into its rationale for deletion. I will keep what you suggest in mind. A Happy and Effective New Year to you... Regards, Steve... Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In my ham-fisted way, I seem to have crossed swords with what looks like a spammer from the book trade who has just threatened legal action of some sort here. I thought I better inform an administrator with some sort of expertise in this matter. No doubt you will also advise me whether I have misinterpreted guidelines on spam from publishers. Sorry to trouble you...and I wish you (without irony!) a Happy New Year. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mzilikazi1939: No, I don't think you have misinterpreted guidelines at all, I totally agree with you. I have blocked the editor, essentially because of the legal threats The promotional editing was also a factor, but so far that has been at the stage where in my opinion warnings would have been enough, rather than an immediate block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The identity, the gender and the path of the Star Wars character of Revan is already know and the page doesn't try to hide it, so what's the point of not stating of what happen to him and two other characters in the book?[35] I thought wiki no longer cared about spoilers being stated on the pages??108.82.5.193 (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is with IP address 107.184.216.180 but clearly that person doesn't seem to have a very good understanding of grammar[36] and there is no nuclear genocide page on wiki, but 107.184.216.180 is not showing any signs of stopping.108.82.5.193 (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I have posted a message to the IP talk page, describing a few problems with the editing. That may be enough to deal with the problems, but if the editor continues in the same way, I suggest warning him or her that doing so may lead to being blocked from editing, and if the problem still continues after that, please feel welcome to contact me again, and I'll consider whether further action is needed.

I hope you will see this message, but it looks as though you have edited from more than one IP address, which makes it difficult to contact you, as any message posted to an IP talk page may never be seen if your IP address changes again. You may like to consider creating an account, which makes communication easier, as well as having other benefits. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There's really nothing I can do about it expect to undo the edit[37], now it's just vandalism at this point.108.82.5.193 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Above, I wrote "I have posted a message to the IP talk page". However, in fact I accidentally posted to the wrong IP talk page. I have now posted to the correct one. It's not entirely true that "There's really nothing [you] can do about it expect to undo the edit": you should have posted a message explaining to the editor what was wrong with the editing: if you had done that and the editor had continued I would have been willing to consider whether a block would be appropriate. As it is, now that I really have posted a warning to the right talk page, please let me know if it happens again, and I will consider whether to block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just curious, as I got a message (notifications) about your edits to this page. I see that Flow now seems to support templates, at least somewhat. But is Flow "mothballed", or are there still some developers working on it? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: So far as I remember, I had never even heard of that page, let alone edited it, at the time when you posted this message. However, an editor using the username "JamesFWatson" edited there, in ways that looked to me like trolling, so perhaps you were notified of edits by that account, or by another troll account with another username imitating mine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's it. I erroneously assumed it was you, sorry. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You just deleted the page I tried to create. First of all, the page was a User Space Daft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft - where I thought I would be allowed time to fix it. It was by no means perfect. It was just a first draft Second of all, I was in touch with editor, ChamithN to try and help me.

Wendygreen11 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wendygreen11: Yes, I understand what you are saying, and indeed it is usual to allow a userspace draft to temporarily contain content that would not be acceptable in a finished article, especially for a new editor. However, there are a few exceptions, and one of those is copyright infringing content. Having the name of an editor prefixed to the title of a web page does not make it exempt from copyright law, and Wikipedia policy is that copyright-infringing content is unacceptable in any page.

You are perfectly free to re-create the page, but if you do so you should be careful to make sure that whatever you write is expressed entirely in your own words, not copied from anywhere else. Also, you may like to consider waiting a while before creating a draft article again. 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. It is true that writing a userspace draft first reduces the risk of getting your work deleted, but unfortunately it does not remove all the problems, and even if a page is not outright deleted, if you find yourself having to completely or almost completely re-write it several times, it can be about as frustrating as having it deleted. This is, of course, just my suggestion, and you are free to take it or not, but you may like to consider it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As I was writing it, I was deleting more than I was writing - because I was so fearful of it being overly promotional. It was by no means ready - and so you had every right to delete it. I just thought I had time to add more text and improve it before it would happen! It's all cool - you're a good editor and one day I hope to be as good as you. I am going to make more improvements and keep going. I will work on gathering all the information and data before I re-write the article and once it's done, I will ping you. You will see that the next one is considerably better than the first. Peace. Wendygreen11 (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: If you would like to have a look the new one is up :) Wendygreen11 (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a repetition of a message I left for you while you were taking a well-deserved break from your Wikipedia volunteer work. Back in October 2013 you temporarily blocked the above user at User talk:Jisteele for vandalism. It appears that this user has been up to the same shenanigans. Just go to his contributions here, and you will find plenty of changes in articles about towns and neighborhoods that are quite minor and not explained in an edit summary. If I am not mistaken, this fellow or girl has also been doing the same kind of edits under a different name, for which he or she has been blocked. I certainly hope you can look into this and take the necessary steps. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Thank you for drawing my attention to this. It has taken me a few days to get round to dealing with this, because the nature of the "references" given made checking difficult, and I wanted to wait until I had time to check fairly thoroughly. However, I have now confirmed that what you say is perfectly true, so I have blocked the account again, this time indefinitely. I shall also revert some of the recent edits, but undoing all of the many hundreds of vandalism edits, many of them buried deep in the editing history of articles, will not be easy. You say that you think the same editor has used a different name, and been blocked: can you say what name? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not remember the name of the editor, only that I ran across the same modus operandi a while back. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, a user that you blocked a while back for repeated vandalism across multiple IPs is up to his old habits. More specifically, since he can't edit his usual pages due to the semi-protection you instated, he's instead switched to other pages related to the Killer Instinct franchise. Since it doesn't really make sense to lock every single KI-related page, especially considering a lot of people are going to want to contribute after the next season of the 2013 game launches in March, plus there's a lot less of the usual back-and-forth editing compared to Orchid and Jago's pages, are there other preventative measures that can be taken instead? -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's really difficult to deal with this type of vandal: protecting articles is not desirable, for the reasons you mention, but blocking the IP addresses is not much good either, as the editor just moves to a new one. Blocking whole ranges of IP addresses is unsatisfactory, as a number of other editors in the same ranges are affected. The best we can do, in the long run, is to keep reverting the vandalism edits, and block each IP address as it comes up. I've blocked the IP address for some months. I've also protected the newly attacked articles for a while, in the slight hope that he/she just may be deterred if he/she thinks that all articles will be protected, though I don't hold out much hope. I'll unprotect the articles after a while, so that other unregistered editors can edit them. I also suggest that you may like to create an account, so that you can edit the articles while they are protected. (Of course I know that won't solve the problem, as other editors apart from you are involved, but it can at least help you.) Please do feel welcome to contact me again if you need to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have personal reasons for choosing not to use an account, but thanks for the quick response and action. I'm sure I can solicit the help of another editor as needed if anything needs to be majorly changed on the 2013 article in the next couple of months. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You will find him at User:Moumou102. Same M.O. as Jisteele, above. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. SQL^{Query me!} 20:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Thanks. I have also found one edit by the new account which had not been reverted, so I have done that. @SQL: I see that you blocked for vandalism, and in the block log wrote "Probably a sock of User:Jisteele as well." Having recently spent quite a long time checking Jisteele's editing history, I can say that there is no "probably" about it: it's certain beyond all reasonable doubt. (Not that it makes any important difference, as the account is blocked either way.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for bothering you again. I deleted an Editions in Print section over at Flatland and had it reverted with the advice that it should be brought up on the Talk Page and a discussion has now started there. It struck me that this could be a test case, setting a precedent with regard to similar sections in future, if the subject is sufficiently aired. I know that somewhere on WP there is a page to alert editors and admins to discussions of general interest but don't know where it is. I would be grateful if you could do that for me, and/or let me know where to go. Thanks, Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mzilikazi1939: Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I see that the section has now been removed, but for what it's worth I will give you my thoughts. In an earlier case that you were involved in, I gave the opinion that the content violated Wikipedia's policy on promotion, but this one is rather different, in that it does not obviously appear to be designed to publicise one publisher's products. However, my experience is that sections of this sort often serve mainly, if not entirely, as a place for publishers' representatives to post spam. Whether that is no in this case I don't know, as I have not searched through the editing history, and checked the contributions of every editor who has ever added to the section. Sometimes such sections are clearly outright spam-dumps, sometimes they are genuine neutral editors' good-faith attempts to add useful information. I generally feel a little uncomfortable about such sections, but tend to remove them only if they seem to be clearly spam, and personally I would probably not have removed this one, but it's a borderline judgement, and I have no quarrel with you for having chosen the other side of the borderline than I would have gone for. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, JamesBWatson. May I have your permission to transfer your reply to the talk page in question? Its clarity would be a useful addition there and a reference point should other discussions of the question arise. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mzilikazi1939: Feel welcome to copy it to there, if you like. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mzilikazi1939: I have added a note to the article talk page explaining that you copied the comment from here: otherwise, anyone seeing from the editing history that a comment with my signature was posted by you might have wondered what you were up to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For painstakingly checking the history of a vandal who had nothing better to do with his or her time than make scores of minor and abusive changes to lots of articles. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Now PLEASE TELL ME where DO I express my frustration/disappointment? Cheers! Shir-El too 15:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

184.153.13.143 is in the middle of a year-long block and 184.153.18.12 has been making the same unsourced edits with synthesizer minutiae. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked. Working on reverting the mess. SQL^{Query me!} 07:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This is just to let you know that the next wikimeets in North-West England will take place in:

• Manchester on 23rd January 2016
• Liverpool on 27th February 2016

Please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page if you can make them! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to restore the page Duma Optronics and I was suggested to send the new revision to an experienced admin so I'm sending it to you. Please restore the page or give me feedback on necessary improvements to make it credible and once and for all resolve the issues regarding the page.

—  Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.12.193 (talk • contribs) 13 January 2016‎

1. If, as seems likely, you are working for Duma Optronics, then you need to say so: failure to do so is a breach of Wikipedia's terms of use. ("Working for Duma Optronics" includes being an employee of the company, being an independent marketing contractor working on behalf of the company, or any other way in which you may be acting on behalf of the company.)
2. Assuming you are editing on behalf of the company, you should be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, which discourage you from creating an article about the company, whether or not you disclose your connection to the company. It is often very difficult for someone closely involved to write from a neutral point of view, with the result that articles created by people working for businesses tend to come over as promotional, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy.
3. You say you wish to "once and for all resolve the issues regarding the page". However, the reason for the deletion decision at the deletion discussion was a lack of evidence of substantial coverage in independent sources, as required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The latest draft which you posted to this talk page did nothing to address that issue: the references and external links were either pages on the company's own web site or mere product announcements on web sites where you yourself said that Duma Optronics "regularly displays its products", meaning that they are not independent sources; also, at least one of the pages stated that it was a press release. While various problems with a Wikipedia article can be solved by editing or rewriting the article, no amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject of the article.
4. Of course, the fact that the draft you submitted lacks evidence that the company satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines does not prove that it doesn't: it could be that there is plenty of evidence of notability, but you didn't provide it, probably because of a lack of knowledge of what is required. For that reason, I have made my own searches for evidence of notability. I'm afraid I failed to find any of the sort of substantial coverage in independent sources that is needed.
5. More information about the sorts of issues I have referred to, and other issues relevant to writing articles about businesses, is to be seen at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which also gives links to various relevant policies and guidelines, which you can follow if you want yet further information. (In my opinion Wikipedia has far too large a collection of policies and guidelines, making it bewildering for new editors, but I think all of the most important points are covered in the one page I have linked to.)
6. It is very common for people to come to editing Wikipedia in the mistaken belief that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means that anyone can add anything they like to Wikipedia, including pages intended to publicise their business, club, book, band, or whatever. However, that is not the case: it means something more like "anyone can contribute within the framework of what Wikipedia's policies consider acceptable. My impression is that you would probably be better advised putting your time and effort into trying to publicise your business somewhere else, other than Wikipedia. It may seem unfriendly to say that, but in fact I think it would be more unfriendly to encourage you to put more time and effort into drafting pages about your business for Wikipedia, only to see them rejected time and time again. Articles about Duma Optronics have already been deleted three times, and with the best will in the world it looks to me as though the same is likely to happen to any article on the subject. This is, of course, just my advice, and you are free to take it or not, but it is based on many years' experience of what has happened in numerous similar cases. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 3:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I appreciate your investment of time and energy in this.

Firstly, I do have relations with the company but I did not create the page, so any deletions regarding Conflict of Interest would only need to cancel my own updates and not the entire page, which existed for a while. In any case, how does one reports to Wikipedia on his relations?

Secondly, while looking at other organizations' Wikipedia pages it seems rather clear that they were written by people related to their respective companies, otherwise company pages wouldn't have existed. So the decision for selecting which page is legitimate or not is mainly based on the evidence of notability. My question is therefore- How much evidence is needed? I will try to provide enough evidence by using only independent sources from now on.

Here's another link for an article posted by the Israeli Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor - http://www.moital.gov.il/cmstamat/Rsrc/ICA/Automotive%202104/pdf/Auto_075.pdf Furthermore, I can attach Quality Report cards from notable clients in the industry.

Thanks again for your help, EotN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleofthenorth (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest was no part of the reasons for any of the three deletions of the article. The reasons were lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, promotional content, and copyright infringement.

A common way of satisfying the requirement to disclose any paid involvement in the subject one is editing about is to create a user page with a message stating one's relationship to the subject: in your case this would mean editing User:Eagleofthenorth. However, in my opinion there is a good case for also displaying the information at the top of your talk page, User talk:Eagleofthenorth, as on the whole people look at talk pages more often than user pages.

You say "while looking at other organizations' Wikipedia pages it seems rather clear that they were written by people related to their respective companies, otherwise company pages wouldn't have existed". You may mean that you have seen particular examples where articles have clearly been written by people working on behalf of the companies, but your wording "otherwise company pages wouldn't have existed" suggests to me that you more probably mean that nobody would ever write an article about a company unless they were working for that company. If you do, in fact, mean the former of those, then you are perfectly right: not only are many articles clearly written in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, but a significant number of them are nothing but blatant spam. Most spam articles get deleted very quickly, but a number of them escape for a very long time before being noticed and deleted. If, however, you mean that nobody would ever write an article about a business unless there were working for that business, then I can assure you that you are mistaken. Vast amounts of work creating Wikipedia articles is done by volunteers with no personal interest or involvement in the subjects about which they write, purely because they enjoy contributing to the encyclopaedia. There is a proportion of people who come here only to use Wikipedia to publicise something that they are involved with (such as their companies, their bands, their clubs, themselves, their self-published books, etc etc) and very often such people (especially, for some reason, those who are here to publicise companies) assume that everyone is here in the same spirit, because nobody would put in the time and effort to create an article on a subject where they were not going to personally benefit, but it just ain't so. Not everybody is interested only in doing things which stand to financially benefit themselves.

Regarding the page at www.moital.gov.il that you link to, I had actually already found that page when I was searching for evidence of notability of the company. It is not entirely clear to me what the status of the page is, but its use of the word "our" makes it clear that it is written by or on behalf of the company, so that it is not an independent source. As for how much evidence of notability is needed, it is impossible to give a precise answer: it is a matter of judgement, based on experience of what has been considered acceptable in the past. Generally, my advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles, so that they gradually build up experience of how Wikipedia works and what is acceptable, so that eventually they have sufficient grasp of what is needed that they can make a good judgement of what is likely to be satisfactory. However, that advice is unlikely to be of much use to someone whose only purpose here is to edit about their own company, and who has no interest in putting a lot of work into making minor contributions on other subjects. However, my judgement, based on about nine and a half years of experience of working for Wikipedia, including five and a half years as an administrator, is that the kind of coverage that I have been able to find for Duma Optronics does not come anywhere near to being sufficient. A month ago there was a discussion about the article, the conclusion of which was that the subject did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. I took no part in that discussion, nor was I the administrator who closed the discussion and deleted the article, but my own searches have led me independently to the same conclusion. As I said above, while various problems with a Wikipedia article can be solved by editing or rewriting the article, no amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. My final word of advice to you is that any time and work you put into this is likely to be wasted, as any article on the subject is likely to be deleted, and you would be better advised to put the same time and effort into publicising your company somewhere other than Wikipedia. The fact that the article, which violated several of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, escaped unnoticed for quite a while is not very relevant: now that it has been noticed, it will be dealt with pretty quickly if it is re-created (as has already happened: following the first deletion of the article, two re-creations of it were deleted fairly soon after being created). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you know about filters? I don't, but there's something that might go well in there IMO. If you do, could you look at User talk:Bbb23 in the Anhinhhhd SPI thread. If you don't, could you point me in the direction of someone who can. It's not an area I get involved in usually. I got caught in one once, but never understood why <8-( Peridon (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: First of all, apologies for not having answered earlier. No, I'm afraid I know very little about filters. The one time I had significant involvement in a case where a filter was used, the filter was actually written by someone else, and I thought I could help you by searching through my talk page archives and finding who that was, but I'm afraid it turns out that it was an editor who suddenly stopped editing last October, namely Gogo Dodo (as you can see at User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 56#More and more elevators, if you are interested). The best suggestion I can think of is to look at who has edited existing filters, and ask one of those editors. Special:AbuseFilter/history may be useful, or you can look at the history of a specific existing filter: for example, Special:AbuseFilter/history/172. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Three months is a bit long for a sudden disappearance without any sign of trouble or disillusionment. And FreeRangeFrog gone too, after a hard day's work here. Peridon (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: I didn't know about FreeRangeFrog, but I see that he or she was editing very actively right up to the last day, and then abruptly disappeared, without any warning. Rather disconcerting. However, even Wikipedia administrators can't go on for ever. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you please help me integrate the sources I have added to the Talk pages of igHome and Symbaloo, so that these can show notability of these two articles? I don't think they deserve deletion, but find it hard to determine how to avoid this. Michieldewit (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Michieldewit: I have removed the deletion proposals, since you have contested the deletions. To assess all the sources you have listed properly would take more time than I have available now, and I don't want to do a rushed job. I will try to remember to come back to this when I have more time, but that will probably not be for a few days. If I don't get back onto you about this by Tuesday, please feel welcome to contact me again to remind me to look into it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can you userfy Melbourne Chess Club to a user page in my user space? I may merge the content to a page like "chess clubs in Australia" which might be justified. Thank you. -- Callinus (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Callinus:  Done See User:Callinus/Melbourne Chess Club. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to know the process to restore the page titled Universidad Gestalt de Diseño, to be able to include this University into the list of Universities in Mexico under the section private institutions. Let me know if any documentation is needed. Our University is registered with the Mexican Education agency (SEP), it is a federal recognized university, unlike others in our state which do have a Wikipedia page enabled. Please let me know your criteria for deleting pages regarding institutions. Thanks.

Yours kindly,

Graphicdesign141 Graphicdesign141 (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Graphicdesign141: There has never been an article about this on English Wikipedia: the page Universidad Gestalt de Diseño was just a link redirecting to an article on Spanish Wikipedia. The Spanish article was deleted, as you can see if you click on this link: es:Universidad Gestalt de Diseño, and so I deleted the redirect, as it no longer served any useful purpose. Your use of the word "our" indicates that you connected to the university, in which case, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest you should not be directly creating an article about it, but you can submit a draft proposal for an article, for independent editors to review. You should read the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. Also, if you are working in a paid capacity for the university then Wikipedia's terms of use require you to state what your position is. Further information relevant to articles of this kind is provided at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which also contains links to various policies, guidelines, etc. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

...seems to have landed on the wrong page, at Mr. Amardeep Tiwana. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Oops! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree - normally, I catch these... Upon looking at it a second time, stuff like this makes it obvious. Thanks for catching it. Best, m.o.p 14:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets: I have enough experience of your work to be confident that you wouldn't have let this go if you had seen everything, but none of us can always spot everything relevant. It would help if more editors included diffs in reports, as otherwise any admin reviewing a report has to pretty well guess which edits to look at (unless the number of edits is small enough to check them all) and it is sometimes easy to make a selection of edits which don't show the problem. My post at AIV was just to let you know, and was not intended as a criticism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate it all the same. It's a reminder to make sure to dig deeper in the future. Thanks! m.o.p 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you creation protected Kiss It Better (Rihanna song) a year ago, because a deletion discussion determined that it was too soon for an article (WP:CRYSTAL) since the song had not yet been released. Now that it has been released, do you have any objections to me creating that page as a redirect to Anti (album) per the edit request on the talk page? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like MSGJ took care of it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Thanks for your email. I agree with what you said, and I have removed the draft of The Warrior Woman, and the one edit about Pauly Shore Is Dead, from the history of Adopted (film). I couldn't see anything in the history which needed to be kept and merged to The Warrior Woman or Pauly Shore Is Dead for any reason. The history of Talk:Adopted (film), however, included the early history of edits to the user's talk page, so I have de-merged it from the article talk page history and merged it back into the user talk page history where it belongs. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Want to whack this "article" again? It was re-created three hours after you deleted it.

Thanks! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 20:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In terms of information in a sandbox not including things under copyright, if there is still information under copyright when I *preview* the document, is that stored anywhere that would cause a problem? I didn't think that things that were previewed were stored anywhere, but I wanted to be sure...Naraht (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Naraht: As far as I know, there is no problem with previewing, since it is not publicly visible, but I am not an expert in such technicalities. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

OK thanx, next stop WP:VPT... Naraht (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is regard your deletion of page "Currency Chest In India". I am the author of the same in Quora.com and I want to donate this topic to wikepedia. Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswatkmce (talk • contribs) 09:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC) I have donated my article in Quora to wikepedia by using the option 'copy left' in my Quora page. You may please revive my wikepedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswatkmce (talk • contribs) 09:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Viswatkmce: You can read my assessment of this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Currency chest. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson, since you're listed in CAT:REVDEL I thought I might ask if you could remove this diff: [38]. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 15:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bonadea:  Done. Do you know, I had completely forgotten the existence of that category, let alone the fact that I had added myself to it back in July 2013. Well, that explains why from time to time I get Revdel requests on this page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine that would be why :-) Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 15:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Planning to edit the Quarto group page's history and imprints, I have gathered references, can I show you the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abmd942 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Abmd942: Yes, please go ahead. If it is just a matter of one or two sentences, you can post it at Talk:Quarto Group, if you like, and let me know you have done so. However, I find it is not helpful to put more substantial edits or significant rewrites of articles in talk pages, and so if you want to post a suggestion for more than a fairly small change I suggest creating a page User:Abmd942/Quarto Group and posting your proposed new version there.

If you don't mind, can you tell me whether you are the editor who previously edited under the user name LucyQuarto, and if not what your connection to her is? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Yes Lucy Quarto is me, I'm very new to all this and obviously didn't read the guidelines the first time, I think I have managed to flag up my COI on my user page. Sorry for my previous rubbish wikapediaing. I will post my proposed edits on Abmd942/Quarto Group and it would be great if you could do me the courtesy of checking its appropriateness. Thank-you, Lucy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abmd942 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I was also wondering about the information I posted two days ago, it was flagged as not being in line with wiki regulations due to a marketing tonality, I didn't mean for that at all, but I would still like to post the information (without any marketing tonality) but I found it hard to understand where it was. I posted it under the titles "Quarto Publishing Group UK" "Quarto Publishing Group USA" e.t.c I shall post the the content for those titles on the User:Abmd942/Quarto Group. It would be great if you could tell me where I'm going wrong :).

@Abmd942: I have had a quick look at the draft you have written, but I don't have time now to check it thoroughly enough to give you useful feedback. I will try to look at it as soon as I can. However, I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I genuinely intend to come back to very often get lost, as my mind uncontrollably jumps off onto other things. If I haven't got back to you on this within a a couple of days please remind me: I will regard it as help, not harassment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Aww Thanks so much! I really appreciate your help! :) Abmd942 (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Hi just a little reminder! Lucy :) Abmd942 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: So what do you make of it? Abmd942 (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have posted a fairly long reply on your talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson you have are planning the article pro evolution soccer 2017 to delete but the information provided by the this page are real and you can find it in the different websites like fifplay,winningelevenblog etc. Even gameplay trailers are released. So I think this article should not be deleted instead it should be preserved for the information of upcoming video game pes 2017. If you are against my request than write what should be done to prevent this article from being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beebek62 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 February 2016‎ (UTC)

You can state the reasons why you think the article shouldn't be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Evolution Soccer 2017. However, the reason for proposing deletion is lack of evidence of notability, not because of any suggestion that the information is not "real". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been in email touch with this user for a while ... so yes, I am reviewing this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Great. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

well, maybe because nihil = nothing and "nothing" is not a trivial concept here but central to the entire lemma. -- Kku 22:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kku: Yes, I am perfectly well aware of the connection between the concept "nothing" and the concept "annihilation", and also of the etymology of the word "annihilation". However, that was not the question: the question was about what in the Wikipedia article Nothing would help anyone to understand the Wikipedia article Annihilation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Will it confuse the reader? Does the target article contain wrong information? Is the target lemma off-topic? Is the link detrimental to the overall comprehensibility? Is the article "overlinked"? Is there an objective measure for overlinking? Is there a law against hyperlinks from one lemma to a parent lemma with a broader scope? I think if you can answer more than 50% percent of these questions in the affirmative, then you might have a point. -- Kku 10:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. Pointless links are pointless. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide some feedback as to why the Orang Eire page was deleted. Why would a page for an not-for-profit sports team can be considered advertising or promotion. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianMc15 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 February 2016

@BrianMc15: The reason why a page would "be considered advertising or promotion" is that it appears to be written to advertise or promote its subject: whether that subject seeks to make a profit or not is irrelevant. Thus, an article which consists almost entirely of a list of successes and achievements of a club, together with language designed to give a favourable impression of the club, rather than neutral reporting, such as telling us that it "is made up of talented athletes", is likely to be seen as attempting to promote the club. Likewise, an article telling us that the club "has gone from strength to strength", that their "hard work paid off", that tournaments held by the club were "overwhelming successes" and so on is not by any stretch of the imagination neutral reporting: it is promotional language, more suited to the club's own web site or PR material than to an encyclopaedia which seeks to give coverage from a neutral point of view. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the sockpuppet activity on Capital punishment in Japan (sockpuppet keeps removing postings on WP:AIV). - 4ing (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@4ing:  Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi James, Can you please take a look at R1a? A disruptive and suspicious editor edit-warring despite the explanations. 176.219.166.28 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, at your request I have looked at it. I have seen edit-warring by an editor using the IP address 176.219.166.28, claiming to be removing content which is not supported by the cited source. However, I have also looked at the cited source, and it appears to me to support the disputed content. Can you explain why you think it doesn't, when your block is over? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)