User talk:JBW/Archive 39
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
STOP DELETING MY PAGES!
Stop deleting my pages! I made a page for my favourite band because they didn't have one and you deleted it, I made on for there upcoming album and you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazz101 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly so. You need to read the notability guidelines to see why. (Links are given on your talk page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/makemefamousmusic they are a real band one of the most anticipated bands in all of metal at the moment. There Album is real It's Now Or Never. comes out on the 27th of march, 2012.
So stop deleting the page when people make one for them!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazz101 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody denied that "they are a real band". Have you actually read thenotability guidelines? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
If you knew they were a real band why delete the page? I wasn't even done editing the page yet, you guys just deleted it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazz101 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I will try just once more. If you want to know why the article was deleted, then read the notability guidelines. You may also like to look at WP:Existence ≠ Notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything that exists: to qualify as the subject of an article, a topic has to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. There is no evidence that your band does so. Got it?
- On an unrelated note, please add any new talk page message on an existing subject in the section where that subject is already dealt with. Please avoid adding it to a section on a different subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Farthing Woods....
Just a heads up. User moved article, marked the move as "minor", which seems odd. [1] And the contribs look familiar. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and look, a new article List of the Animals of Farthing Wood episodes Dennis Brown (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. I've blocked the account. I will look at reverting the various page moves etc when I have more time. Thanks for telling me. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like we caught it fairly quick. This guy takes to 'toons like a moth to a flame. And gets the same results. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. I've blocked the account. I will look at reverting the various page moves etc when I have more time. Thanks for telling me. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:HUMOUR and that's all I can say. Please remove the deletion discussion, it's not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.240.169 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 March 2012
- Well, humour is a matter of opinion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Please add new sections at the bottom of the page. That is where new messages will be looked for, and new messages at the top may be overlooked, especially if someone else posts new messages before the misplaced ones are noticed. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi JamesBWatson. You've just deleted, Bush hall, an article I was in the process of improving at the time. You must have missed the {{|hangon}} and {{|inuse}} tags I plastered on it... Would you mind restoring the content (I'm happy for you userfy it to User:Yunshui/Bush Hall or similar, rather than back into mainspace) so that I can finish sorting it out? I'm pretty convinced that it's notable, and the advertising was fairly easily dealt with. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 14:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, balls to it; there aren't enough sources to convince me the effort is worthwhile. As you were! Yunshui 雲水 14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
No copyright materials have been used
You have removed the page I just created entitled Philip Morris & Son. No copyright materials have been used and this entry was designed to show history of Philip Morris & Son and to clarify it that isn't part of Philip Morris the cigarette company. This a common confusion. What is the best way to proceed please? Dean Johnston (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Substantial parts of the article were verbatim from http://blog.philipmorrisdirect.co.uk/about-us/.
- The article was unambiguously promotional in character.
- I see that on your user talk page you say that you are "the website developer for Philip Morris & Son". That means that you have a clear conflict of interest, and should not be writing an article about your own business. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) De ja foo Philip morris & son... Dennis Brown (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I understand if you think I'm advertising, that's not the intention. I've just started creating what I thought to be information what anybody might look for. What better person to write about something like a company that I have knowledge about? I have already re-created the page to try and take your comments into consideration, after all it's information and history we want surfers to find not rubbish. Dean Johnston (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
J.O. Patterson, Sr.
I see you deleted J.O. Patterson, Sr. because the the page was created by a banned or blocked user. However, the code you used was G5 which says "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." I must assume you consider my edits to be insubstantial. Correct? Sandcherry (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have looked back at the article, and I do think that there are significant contributions from other editors, so I have undeleted it. Thanks for calling this to my attention, so I could correct it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! When will it be visible? Sandcherry (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I mistakenly looked at and restored J.O. Patterson, Jr., instead of J.O. Patterson, Sr. However, I have now looked at the Sr. article, and carefully compared the last version with the version left by the banned user who created it, paragraph by paragraph. There had been numerous edits between these two versions, but almost all of those edits were either tiny changes, or fairly small unsuitable changes that had been reverted, or both. (Several of the edits had, quite rightly, been reverted by you.) What remained included a number of minor changes, such as adding an "Unreferenced" tag, changing the date of birth, adding the names of his predecessor and successor as bishop, adding the article to some categories. However, the only really change was the addition of a couple of sentences about his death. Speedy deletion criterion G5 refers to "no substantial edits by others", but does not explicitly mention the issue of what happens if there have been quite a number of edits, but with little effect on the article. Also, even the reverted edits were fairly small, none of them very substantial. Having thought about it very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that it is within the spirit of CSD G5 to say that the article is substantially that created by the blocked user, with no substantial contributions by others, and therefore qualifies for deletion. It would not make much sense to take the line that CSD G5 can be thwarted by making a number of useless edits and reverting them. This impression is reinforced by the fact that the article is unreferenced, and somewhat promotional in character. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- You restored the correct article. I primarily edited J.O. Patterson, Jr. - sorry for the confusion. Also, J.O. Patterson, Sr. does not seem to be notable. Sandcherry (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I mistakenly looked at and restored J.O. Patterson, Jr., instead of J.O. Patterson, Sr. However, I have now looked at the Sr. article, and carefully compared the last version with the version left by the banned user who created it, paragraph by paragraph. There had been numerous edits between these two versions, but almost all of those edits were either tiny changes, or fairly small unsuitable changes that had been reverted, or both. (Several of the edits had, quite rightly, been reverted by you.) What remained included a number of minor changes, such as adding an "Unreferenced" tag, changing the date of birth, adding the names of his predecessor and successor as bishop, adding the article to some categories. However, the only really change was the addition of a couple of sentences about his death. Speedy deletion criterion G5 refers to "no substantial edits by others", but does not explicitly mention the issue of what happens if there have been quite a number of edits, but with little effect on the article. Also, even the reverted edits were fairly small, none of them very substantial. Having thought about it very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that it is within the spirit of CSD G5 to say that the article is substantially that created by the blocked user, with no substantial contributions by others, and therefore qualifies for deletion. It would not make much sense to take the line that CSD G5 can be thwarted by making a number of useless edits and reverting them. This impression is reinforced by the fact that the article is unreferenced, and somewhat promotional in character. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! When will it be visible? Sandcherry (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Block of 71.92.177.100
- 71.92.177.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hey, I was trying to decline this AIV report and got edit-conflicted three times. This user has not edited since their last warning, and their last warning was level 3. A block is, in my opinion, premature. --Chris (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- And a one-week block is very premature... --Chris (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, when the same editor has been vandalising over a period of more than 24 hours, despite warnings, I don't see any reason to let them carry on, even though the number of edits has been small and the amount of warning low. However, I'll unblock, and we can see how it goes. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- It just seems a bit pointless to warn someone and follow that up with a block when the editor hasn't done anything since. If we don't plan on giving vandals a chance to stop, we shouldn't issue warnings in the first place. --Chris (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I suppose I was a bit hasty. However, when the same person comes back after more than 24 hours I feel they have been given a chance to stop, and chosen not to take it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- That may very well be true. I guess we will see. Thanks for humoring me. :) --Chris (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, I probably was a little hasty, and there's not much too lose by giving a little WP:ROPE. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- That may very well be true. I guess we will see. Thanks for humoring me. :) --Chris (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I suppose I was a bit hasty. However, when the same person comes back after more than 24 hours I feel they have been given a chance to stop, and chosen not to take it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- It just seems a bit pointless to warn someone and follow that up with a block when the editor hasn't done anything since. If we don't plan on giving vandals a chance to stop, we shouldn't issue warnings in the first place. --Chris (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, when the same editor has been vandalising over a period of more than 24 hours, despite warnings, I don't see any reason to let them carry on, even though the number of edits has been small and the amount of warning low. However, I'll unblock, and we can see how it goes. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsyilmaz (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 March 2012
User:Tiiya Wilhson
My logic was that this User:Tiiya Wilhson exceeds WP:User pages "Excessive unrelated content"
- "A weblog recording your non-Wikipedia activities."
- "Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia"
- and WP:USERBIO where 3 others are mentioned (admittedly just names) "Personal information of other persons without their consent" Widefox (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I certainly agree with those comments about her edits, and I have posted a message to her talk page, explaining to her why her activity is unacceptable. I'm not sure what your purpose in posting to me about it is, but if you are referring to your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, her actions, while inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards, are not vandalism. "Vandalism" does not mean any editing that is unacceptable, but only editing which is done with the intention of being obstructive. I see no evidence at all that she was doing anything other than editing in good faith, without being aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In that situation the thing to do is to give friendly explanation and advice, not to block the user from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- On second thought, did you mean to refer to your speedy deletion tag on her user page? If so, then that is a simpler matter. It is not "a blatant and obvious hoax". It may or may not be a hoax, but it is not a blatant and obvious one: it could easily be a vanity page about herself, not a hoax at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Tinga Tinga Terrorist
Not enough to get overly excited but...[2] and worth watching at the least. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- 122.109.56.182 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)} is more likely a winner, right country, pleading summaries. Nothing yet, just stalking the prey ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The first is doubtful, but the second is certain. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm getting better at that. Marginally. I need to just whois them all first, sometimes I get in a hurry and jump the gun. Would rather catch it early on, as I'm sure you would. I do rather like the Curious moniker "Tinga Tinga Terrorist" however ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The first is doubtful, but the second is certain. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
This is seeming worthy of a long term abuse case. God knows when he'll let up. Calabe1992 12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Blocking his sockpuppets is like playing a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. I don't see "when" any time soon, he is pretty obsessed. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Unfortunately, some of the ranges he uses also get significant amounts of use by other editors, which limits the amount of range-blocking that can be used, and he has edited quite a number of articles, which limits the effectiveness of page protection. Nevertheless, some range blocking and some page protection do combine together to significantly reduce the damage, I think, and other than that it as a matter of whack-a-mole. The one thing that helps to make it easier is that he doesn't seem to be very intelligent. A more intelligent person would easily be able to avoid some of the pitfalls that this person repeatedly falls into. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Confused by a page deletion
What happened to the "List of Animals of Farthing Wood Episodes" page if I may dare ask? I've been using that page recently and noticed that you deleted it on March 14th - it didn't seem like a problem page, whats going on here? Jennytablina (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) List of the Animals of Farthing Wood episodes shows why it was deleted, sock action. It was also full of copyvio, no sources or rationale for WP:N, but those are separate problems. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I spent some time searching, and came to the conclusion you must mean List of the Animals of Farthing Wood episodes. (A difference in the title make it unrecognisable by the software.) I was about to post an answer to your query, when some stupid Microsoft update program decided to shut my computer down without consulting me. By the time I came back online, Dennis Brown had beaten me to it. However, I will add one thing. There has been much discussion on a number of occasions as to whether an article which might be useful should be deleted just because it was created by a banned user. There are perfectly good and intelligent arguments on both sides. However, each time it has been discussed there has been consensus for the view that the damage done by sometimes losing usable articles is outweighed by the damage to the project that would be done if banned users were given the message that they could get away with ignoring their ban, and edit as if they were not banned, Thus the policy is that a page created by a banned user in defiance of their ban, with no substantive edits by others, can be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
About a certain game...
Would you mind helping w/ this article?
Thanks.
-017Bluefield (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that the article could benefit from a clean up, but I know nothing about the subject, and am not sure how much help I could be. I also think that, if I did make changes, there is a good chance that the changes I mace might not be to your liking. For example, I see that you have added at least one empty section, whereas I regard empty sections as totally undesirable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear james would you please delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marila_rita_chantia or let me edit the problem that you deleted it. i was so bad view for me to visitors see deletation logs, i try to remove it but i couldn't please help me.
Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marila rita chantia (talk • contribs) 20:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- We can't remove that, for legal, technical, and transparency reasons, sorry.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't help at all. Wikipedia administrators have no power to remove deletion logs. Technically the Wikimedia Foundation could do it, but I am confident that they wouldn't, except in most exceptional circumstances. Sorry. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've just looked back at the history of this article. I had forgotten that the article was a hoax. Frankly, even if I could remove the deletion log, I wouldn't. Before you chose to abuse Wikipedia to publicise lies, you should have considered the fact that, if your lies were detected, your dishonesty would be publicly exposed. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Fifty shades of Grey?
I noticed that the "Fifty Shades of Grey" article was deleted. I don't know much about the book directly, and I went to Wikipedia to find out more. I'm a bit disappointed that someone (Mr. Watson I presume?) removed the entry.
"Fifty Shades of Grey" by author E.L. James is apparently based on S. Meyers Twilight series fan fiction. There is some controversy about plagiarism of Meyers work, and the situation poses some legal issues as well. Both books are New York Times best sellers. On this evidence, I think the book is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.20.99 (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can you give me the exact title of the deleted article (making sure you get such details as capitalisation right)? If you do, I will look back at the history of the article and see why it was deleted. However, there is no record of there having ever been an article entitled either Fifty shades of Grey or Fifty Shades of Grey. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Declined proposed deletion of Laurent Garnier
I am utterly mystified why you proposed this article for deletion. It already has citations of an Allmusic biography that makes his notability clear and to a book source that confirms several British hit records. There are lots of news articles showing up on a Google News search and several Google Books results, so your claim that there is "no evidence of notability" is astounding. Can I remind you that proposed deletion is only for articles that are "uncontroversially a deletion candidate". This doesn't come close to being suitable for proposed deletion.--Michig (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for contacting me to let me know your thoughts on this.
- Allmusic does little to establish notability, as it indiscriminately includes almost anyone with a place in the music industry (as its name implies): it does not have anything remotely like Wikipedia's notability criteria. I am always cautious about considering statements like "There are lots of news articles showing up on a Google News search", because unfortunately many people say something like that and actually mean what they say, viz. simply "there are lots of news articles showing up on a Google News search", rather than "there are lots of news articles showing up on a Google News search, and I have checked that a significant number of them contain the kind of coverage required to establish that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines". Naturally I hope you meant the latter, and chose not to go to the trouble of saying what suitable sources you had found, but when I checked the Google News hits, I found that most of them gave only passing mention of Garnier, and those that gave more were doubtfully reliable, doubtfully independent, or both. (For example, www.skiddle.com, which gave the most coverage among the first few hits, is selling tickets to an event involving Garnier.) Turning to the Google books hits, I found it necessary to start by excluding those which refer to completely different people of the same name. (No doubt you too found the same when you checked them.) For example, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana (1836) is clearly referring to a different Laurent Garnier, and Quantitative analysis of early visual units of the fly (By Laurent Garnier) is no doubt by a different Laurent Garnier. When we exclude such books as those, we are left mainly with passing mentions, though in a few cases with several passing mentions.
- To answer your question, yes, you certainly can remind me that PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions. Clearly this one was not uncontroversial, as you have contested it. However, before I made the proposal, I had no way of knowing that it was controversial. With nowhere near enough evidence in the article to establish notability by Wikipedia standards, a request for better sources which had received no response in nearly two years, and the sort of results I have described on searching for sources, all appearances were fully consistent with it being an uncontroversial case, and the only way to find out that it wasn't was to try placing a PROD and seeing whether anyone contested it. As you are aware, that settled the matter, and established that the deletion is in fact controversial. That is exactly the purpose for which proposing deletion is for. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- So you didn't see these that come up on the first page of a Google Books search, and all go well beyond 'passing mentions': Billboard, CMJ New Music Monthly? Allmusic does not 'indiscriminately include almost anyone with a place in the music industry', certainly not when it comes to writing biographies, and in any case it is reliable source - it doesn't matter what its inclusion criteria are. Articles about artists that have had hit records are never going to be uncontroversial deletion candidates. Please bear this in mind in future.--Michig (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so a brief one-paragraph review is more than a "passing mention", but not very substantial. Allmusic's own claim is to try to be as inclusive as possible. I find "it doesn't matter what its inclusion criteria are" a truly bewildering statement. If a source includes subjects which have no significance or importance, then inclusion in that source is no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- So you didn't see these that come up on the first page of a Google Books search, and all go well beyond 'passing mentions': Billboard, CMJ New Music Monthly? Allmusic does not 'indiscriminately include almost anyone with a place in the music industry', certainly not when it comes to writing biographies, and in any case it is reliable source - it doesn't matter what its inclusion criteria are. Articles about artists that have had hit records are never going to be uncontroversial deletion candidates. Please bear this in mind in future.--Michig (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
G5?
Why delete J.O. Patterson, Sr. under G5? The criterion only applies to pages without substantial edits from other people, and this article seems to have gotten substantial edits from lots of people who are neither blocked nor banned. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- From the last version before anyone other than the creator of the article edited it, to the final version before deleted, there was very little substantive change. Almost all of the edits between those two versions were either really tiny changes, or fairly small unsuitable changes that had been reverted. "Unsuitable" changes included probable BLP violations, as well as assorted unsourced promotional edits, etc.) As I said to another editor who asked me about this deletion, what remained included a number of minor changes, such as adding an "Unreferenced" tag, changing the date of birth, adding the names of his predecessor and successor as bishop, adding the article to some categories, while the only significant change was the addition of a couple of sentences about his death. However, since I have been asked a second time about the same deletion, I will give below a more detailed description of the changes. All of the changes were fairly small, none of them very substantial, and nearly all of those that had not been reverted were not at all substantive. Having thought about it very carefully, I came to the conclusion that it was within the spirit of CSD G5 to say that the article was substantially that created by the blocked user, with no substantial contributions by others, and therefore qualified for deletion. It would not make much sense to take the line that CSD G5 can be thwarted by making a number of useless edits and having them reverted. This impression is reinforced by the fact that the article is unreferenced, and somewhat promotional in character.
- As promised above, I will now give a more detailed analysis of the kind of changes made between the author's version and the final version.
- The article was added to a few categories. An unreferenced tag was added; the date of birth was changed; there were a number of minor formatting changes and similar, such as replacing "1907-1961" with "1907–1961", replacing the wikilink [[denomination]] with [[Christian denomination|denomination]] and [[American]] with [[United States|American]], etc. [[Holiness]]-[[Pentecostal]] was replaced with [[International Pentecostal Holiness Church|Pentecostal-Holiness]].
- An external link was added to a web page by his son. Two copies of an external link to the Amazon page of a book by the same son were added. (One of the copies of the link was formatted as a "reference", but not attached to any statement in the article. Judging by reviews and the amazon summary of the book, it is about J. O. Patterson's son meeting some members of Michael Jackson's family, and nothing I have been able to found suggests there is more than passing mention of J. O. Patterson in it.)
- There were a couple of more substantial, but still not very substantial, changes. Thus, the text "This ministry was started with less than twenty members, but through the years God blessed and the congregation grew to be one of the largest in the COGIC, with over 3,000 active members" was replaced with "Pentecostal Temple was started with less than twenty members, but through the years the congregation grew to be one of the largest in the COGIC, with over 3,000 active members".
- Apart from the mention of the death, the most significant change was the addition of names of some people, with a claim that Patterson was their father. This claim had been repeatedly made by an edit-warring single purpose editor, using both an account and IP addresses. The claims lacked any reliable source, and could be libellous. They constituted a BLP violation, and so had no place in the article, and have to be completely discounted when assessing how substantial the changes were.
- That leaves us with just one significant change, namely the addition of a three-sentence mention of Patterson's death. I did not think that this was sufficiently substantial to prevent speedy deletion.
- I hope that gives some clarification of my reasons for regarding the deletion as valid. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Workgroup information deleted again
I put some factual information on the workgroup page and you deleted it again after I edited it again. It was pure facts and was entered under a sub heading. It included more detail about the peer to peer network on Microsoft servers. I even made a reference to the Microsoft website as it manufactures the products connected with workgroups. I'm happy to help improve any information that I am experienced with unless it is always deleted. I'm Microsoft Certified and a web developer so I am able to provide further information on many items related. Not sure if it's really worth it now, why did you delete it again? Dean Johnston (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- The page Workgroup is a disambiguation page. This means that it lists links to articles on different topics, any of which might be what a user wants if he or she searches for "Workgroup". The user can then follow the appropriate link to the article on the topic they want. For each link the page contains a brief explanation of what sense of "Workgroup" is involved, to enable users to select the right link. It is not helpful to expand disambiguation pages by including more substantial information on each topic, as the result is a page in which the relevant information a person wants is lost amongst other information on other topics. If you have information to add about one of the particular topics, then the place to add it is in the article on that topic, not in the disambiguation page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Please help me get the Seedfund Wikipedia page right
Why are you deleting the 'Seedfund' page I don't understand! I had put credible independent sources where the fund was mentioned and the language used was neutral.
Why don't you check Seedfund.in and all the team members on LinkedIn/FB and if you google 'seedfund india' you will see that we exist. And Wikipedia's interface is so confusing and the guidelines too. I am so irritated and unsure what to do!
You can check SEBI Registered VC funds list of SEBI registered Indian VC funds and see for yourself that we are the India Seed Investment Trust. And the address mentioned here is the same one on our official site.
Pleasee help me here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.182.242 (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree that Wikipedia's guidelines can be confusing for newcomers. In my opinion the are far too many policies and guidelines: I would prefer a return to the situation in the early days of Wikipedia, when everything was much simpler. I have posted some suggestions and advice to the talk page of the account which wrote the article, which, from what you say, was you.
- I do not doubt that the business exists. Presumably you have seen the deletion log for the article, as you would otherwise have had no reason to associate me with the deletion. You will, therefore, have seen that the reason for the deletion was that there was no explanation of the subject's significance, not that it was doubted that the business exists. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on just anything, but requires a topic to satisfy certain notability standards if it is to be the subject of an article. You may like to read WP:Existence ≠ Notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Seen. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
How to properly warn someone?
Hello, Thanks for your feedback. I would like to know exactly how to warn someone who has not only vandalized a public page but has gone further to do damage on my personal page: Sajo10 is the same user as an ip address I mentioned before. Please check Revision history of User:BiHVolim. Thanks (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I see that Sajo10 has a history of unhelpful editing, and also that it looks very likely that 213.112.123.66 is the same person. I also see that Sajo10 has received a very large number of messages over a long period about copyright issues and creating unsourced articles, but, as far as I can see, none about vandalism, and the IP talk page has never received any messages at all. I am also very surprised, in view of the string of messages to Sajo10 about problems, that he/she has never been warned about the possibility of a block. As for vandalism, though, I cannot see any evidence of that. Some of the issues appear to be differences of opinion between you and the other editor, rather than vandalism issues (for example, disagreement about such matters as whether to include accents on non-English names of people). Other differences involve details about scoring statistics, and only someone with a detailed knowledge of the subject could possibly be able to see at a glance whether that is vandalism or not. If it is vandalism, then you need to explain why, if you want an administrator to take any action. You can't expect an administrator who knows nothing about the Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team to spend hours looking up their history to decide whether there is vandalism involved.
- The first thing to do is to contact the editor involved to explain your concerns. The place to do that is on the relevant talk page, either User talk:Sajo10 or User talk:213.112.123.66, as the case may be. There are ready-made message templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to use for various kinds of disruptive editing such as vandalism. However, it looks to me as though in this case it may be a matter of a good faith editor who does things you disagree with, in which case giving a vandalism warning will be unhelpful, and you should take the trouble to write your own message explaining why you disagree, rather than using a templated message. If the other editor thinks that what he or she is doing is right, then no matter how much you disagree, nothing useful will be achieved by saying "stop vandalising": you need to explain why you disagree. If, on the other hand, there really is vandalism, then it is a subtle kind of vandalism that is not obvious to an outsider (such as me). In that case it is necessary to explain why it is vandalism, so that if and when the case needs to be considered by an administrator, it will be clear to that administrator what the problem is. Therefore I strongly advise you to explain on the relevant user talk page what the problem is, whether or not it is vandalism.
- You may also find it helpful to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that absolutely helpful response. I will have to re-read and give it a good go. Cheers once again. (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This user says that they have retired and has put a link at the bottom of the talk page and user page which leads to User:McOoee. I dont think that its proper according to policies. Thanks! Yasht101
10:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Why delete the CVS entry?
Mr. Watson,
Why did you delete the wikipedia entry for the University of California Center for Visual Sciences? I had been working hard with Wikipedia administrator Pol430 to get it in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. The page is intended to mirror many others as part of the numerous linked University of California pages on the Centers in that organization. There is one for the Center for Neuroscience, and other similar centers, and yet you just slapped down this one for no reason other than to claim it's advertising. This is not the case at all, and it is intended to describe the center, its history, and what it does, just like every other Wikipedia article out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkessler45 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Presumably you have seen the deletion log entry, so you will know that the article was deleted as it was unambiguously promotional. From start to finish it was written from the point of view of someone in the organisation who wanted to impress us with how good a job it is doing, not from the point of view of an objective outsider. If you sincerely did not see that, then I can only guess that you are so closely involved in the subject that you are unable to stand back and see how you writing on the subject will look from the perspective of an outsider. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage us from writing articles on subjects we have a close personal involvement in: even if one sincerely intends to write objectively on such a subject, it can be difficult to do so. (That is, of course, quite apart from the case of someone whose deliberate intention is to use Wikipedia to opromote or advertise an organisation.)
- I see that you twice removed a speedy deletion tag from the article, and subsequently it was removed again by an anonymous user using an IP address which has never made any other edits to Wikipedia, and which is registered to the University of California, Davis.
- (Incidentally, although it is not really relevant, I may as well mention that, contrary to what you say, Pol430 is not an administrator.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do work at the university, and while I created the center's Web site, I am not affiliated with the CVS's programs or services. Those are for the UC faculty and students, whereas I am just an IT admin with the server to host the page. No i do not edit wikipedia all the time so I am not familiar with the now quite obvious myriad of nuances surrounding these details that are practically impossible to keep in mind all the time. My goal once Pol430 notified me of the problems was to get it to comply with Wikipedia's standards, which I still would like to do instead of having the topic just crushed. I initially just copied text I had written on the CVS Web page to cover its history, but it was clear that violated several rules, so I was working with Pol to iron these out (and yes I probably had edited the page once without being logged in, so it used my IP address). It's frustrating to have this effort just cancelled instead of being given pointers or options and opportunity to make it better and make it comply (something I would expect from a community effort, instead of this hard-lined policing that seems to be how this is run). Pol started doing this, which I greatly appreciated; but you did not give me this opportunity at all. I removed the speedy deletion tags at first, not knowing how to deal with them, but then seeing them return automatically was aware something else was up, and then started contacting Pol to figure it out. Wikipedia's guidelines (G11 that you linked to) do specifically state that it is OK to write about an organization you are involved with, so this alone is not enough to remove the article (in fact, after discussing with some colleagues its apparent many people affiliated withe the UC have contributed to the various UC pages). Because of that I still would like to get a page up about the CVS that includes something about it, and hopefully includes some of its history as well. It is a legitimate component of the University of California, and my only wish here was to keep the content about the university current and complete. Pol claims it's possible to get a draft of the deleted page so I can work from it, but says he cannot get this to me since he is not an admin, so I'm wondering if this could at all be done through you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.138.51 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have moved it to User:Tkessler45/Center for Visual Sciences. Best wishes with the task of improving the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do work at the university, and while I created the center's Web site, I am not affiliated with the CVS's programs or services. Those are for the UC faculty and students, whereas I am just an IT admin with the server to host the page. No i do not edit wikipedia all the time so I am not familiar with the now quite obvious myriad of nuances surrounding these details that are practically impossible to keep in mind all the time. My goal once Pol430 notified me of the problems was to get it to comply with Wikipedia's standards, which I still would like to do instead of having the topic just crushed. I initially just copied text I had written on the CVS Web page to cover its history, but it was clear that violated several rules, so I was working with Pol to iron these out (and yes I probably had edited the page once without being logged in, so it used my IP address). It's frustrating to have this effort just cancelled instead of being given pointers or options and opportunity to make it better and make it comply (something I would expect from a community effort, instead of this hard-lined policing that seems to be how this is run). Pol started doing this, which I greatly appreciated; but you did not give me this opportunity at all. I removed the speedy deletion tags at first, not knowing how to deal with them, but then seeing them return automatically was aware something else was up, and then started contacting Pol to figure it out. Wikipedia's guidelines (G11 that you linked to) do specifically state that it is OK to write about an organization you are involved with, so this alone is not enough to remove the article (in fact, after discussing with some colleagues its apparent many people affiliated withe the UC have contributed to the various UC pages). Because of that I still would like to get a page up about the CVS that includes something about it, and hopefully includes some of its history as well. It is a legitimate component of the University of California, and my only wish here was to keep the content about the university current and complete. Pol claims it's possible to get a draft of the deleted page so I can work from it, but says he cannot get this to me since he is not an admin, so I'm wondering if this could at all be done through you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.138.51 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Need BLP speedy?
Can you take a look at this? [3] EEng (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank you for your great effort in protecting entries against vandalism specially in Methodism. You deserve this. Ric Padgett (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
CSD G10
Hi James - 7 09:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
From Organicdev
Thank for removing that redundant page for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organicdev (talk • contribs) 12:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for reinstating my page. Is there anyway to delete another page the user totally insulted and ruined? I don't like editing pages that have been tampered with by others. Plus, another user(s)/IP(s) stole a page from my talk/sandbox and I was them banned. They have ruined my property. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 22:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Calabe1992 01:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You warned him for removing {{reflist}} from Rajalingampet. That user again did it and I have reverted it. Please have a look at it. Thank you. Yasht101 :) 09:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks but after your 2nd warning, that user removed material for 4th time. I have warned him for vandalism3. If they continue this practice, then i'll inform you. Happy editing! Yasht101 :) 09:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Great sir! Really appreciate your vigilance. Keep it up! Yasht101 :) 09:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Question Regarding Listing Legitimate Businesses
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ESLTeacherTW (talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 March 2012
Please, check these edits. Thank you.
Since is still claiming to be a "newbie" and "naive", please, check the following edits:
They are all the same and done by the very same user (sock-puppets?). Furthermore, despite 's claim that his/ her IP address "constantly" changes, if that is the case then why shows up as static (See here). Thank you.
- You may be right, but I can't see evidence for it, despite spending a significant time searching. Perhaps you can give diffs for particular edits which are the same or very similar. (Or, if you don't know how to do diffs, then the times of the edits and name/IP of the editors.) I also see some striking contrasts between the different accounts/IPs. For example, Baboon43 has repeatedly removed the word "sect" from Al-Ahbash, (e.g. [4], [5], [6],[7], etc) while Samia et has twice inserted the word "sect" into the same article, as you can see in this edit and this one. This does not superficially look like editing by the same person, and nor do other aspects of theses accounts' editing. Can you provide counter-evidence, suggesting that they are the same person? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the prompt response and looking into that. With all due respect, it isn't only about the insertion or inclusion of a word (i.e. "sect") here and there but also the behavioral issues (e.g. lifting the whole paragraphs from one particular / favorite article, asking other editors to seek his / her permission, insisting and indulging into edit-warring with the fellow editors...). Following are some known sock-puppets which has been used in the past for the very same purpose: Cronodevir (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
Leyasu (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Muslim_sunni (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). It is a recurring thing which happens after every few month by the very same group using the very same "points of contentions." AmandaParker (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Kashruth Council of Canada Page
Thank you for protecting this page from vandalism. This page has a history of blocks. A user Koshervigilante (talk) was blocked for defamation of living persons. That user was blocked by administrator Salvio. The page was reverted by an IP with the same info and Salvio semi-ed it for 2 weeks. During that time a new user Kashrus-vigilante popped up in its place. Salvio blocked this user as well for sock-puppetry. After the 2 weeks were up and there were continued IP attacks (Just reverts of the original defamation.) the page was semi-ed for a month. Just 4 days later an account called Applesandhonee reverted it one more time. This account is a single purpose account that is a sock of Koshervigilante copying his original venom to this page. He was caught by a vandalism bot ClueBot_NG which in turn flagged him and you blocked him for 48 hours. Can you check the history of these edits and find a way to end this puppeteer. How can this page be protected form him? Thank you. I will also copy Salvio on this post. Applesandhoney (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Salvio and I both independently decided to indefinitely block Applesandhonee. (Salvio did so after I meant to but made a mistake.) The reason given in the block log is username policy violation, but there are plenty of other reasons too. The username violation is not a trivial issue. At first I actually thought it was a sockpuppet of yours, and considered blocking your account. I looked into the editing history further, and decided there was no evidence for that, so no harm was done, but it does illustrate that there are good reasons for the policy against usernames that impersonate other users. As for "find a way to end this puppeteer", unfortunately that is likely to be easier said than done. In cases like this, very often the best we can do is look out for them and block them when they arise. Salvio is a checkuser, so he should be able to check for more sockpuppet accounts better than I can. It seems that this user has worked out how to get round semiprotection, but even so semiprotection can help by slowing the person down. I will be willing to consider a longer semiprotection if the problems continue after the present month's worth runs out, but I am always reluctant to use long protection unless the problem really does seem to be persisting over a long period, especially in a case like this where protection is of limited value. The earliest evidence of the problem that I have seen dates from 14 February, but you evidently know more about the history of the problem than I do, so please let me know if you know of any earlier examples. Also, please do feel welcome to contact me again if (or perhaps I should say "when") the problem continues, if you want to. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I appreciate your efforts. Applesandhoney (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Score Fighting Series Deletion?
Hi,
Why was "The Score Fighting Series" page deleted? There was no advertising except the four past events, which highlighted the fighters more than the show.
JordieSmall (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- The article was nominated for deletion by Zad68, and then deleted by Jimfbleak. You re-ceated it under a slightly different title, and it was nominated for deletion by Trivialist, and deleted by me. All four saw it as promotional. The first version had such things as instructions where and when the thing could be watched, and 18 external links, all of those that I checked being promotional links. The second version cut the number of promotional links down to 12, but that is more than enough. It also consisted almost entirely of the sort of information which belongs in a brochure aimed at potential viewers/customers of the event, not the sort of content one would expect to find in an article in an encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought by having a lot of external links it would further the credibility of the article? I was using multimedia to enhance it for anyone interested in seeing what "The Score" or whatever actually was... I'm bringing the source to the viewer because if I didn't then why do they need the article if they can just do it themselves? The second one I created had no such brochure style aimed at "customers". In fact, I all wrote about the promotion was...
"theScore Fighting Series is a mixed martial arts promotion in Canada. Its held four events throughout Ontario since 2011."
Well, that looks pretty necessary if people want to know what it is, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordieSmall (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- A page consisting virtually entirely of a list of the events conducted by the business doesn't seem to me like the thing I would expect to see in an encyclopaedia. However, even if we take the view that the article is not promotional, I can't see any evidence that the organisation comes anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards, so it would be deleted soon anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Notability standards? It's arguably Canada's top MMA promotion currently - you could also make a case for MFC or Ringside as well. Two winners from the December 3rd show are currently in the UFC after their SFS wins... Daron Cruickshank and Chris Clements if you want to fact check. It's fine if you've never heard of it before but I don't think you should be in any position to give your opinion or dismiss something you don't know about. If you need me to make a third article on this with fewer links and more of the promotion's facts (with no sources?), I can do that.
- Perhaps I expressed myself badly, and seemed to be saying something I didn't mean, in which case please accept my apologies. I said that I couldn't see any evidence that the organisation satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards, which is true. You are welcome to produce reliable sources to show that it is notable if you have some. You clearly know far more than I do about the subject, so it's very likely that, if it is notable, you are in a position to show that it is. The fact that the articles did not show that there is any substantial coverage of the organisation in independent, third party, reliable sources, does not prove that there aren't any, but it does mean that the article would have been in danger of deletion if none were provided. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Calabe1992 17:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thanks for your effort banning vandals and socks. Especially the whack a mole variety. Applesandhoney (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
I accept your warning...I'm doing my contribution on the elements of public speaking but I wasn't able finish because of the time. Thank you also for your reminders about the references, I will not forget. I hope you understand me....Thank you! :-)Lightning monty (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete: Carl Gustaf Ehrnrooth
You have speedy deleted Carl Gustaf Ehrnrooth and its talk page on 09:38, 23 March 2012 without my knowledge of opportunity to give my opinion. I feel very disappointed.
In my opinion this page deserves place in Wikipedia since C.G.Ehrnroot is with his brothers the biggest owner of Pöyry and YIT and has aim to a Guggenheim museum in Helsinki that majority of the local people oppose. This project is presented as also in Finnish and Russian Wiki as own page fi:Guggenheim Helsinki –suunnitelma. I included ii in its promotor Carl Gustaf Ehrnrooth since he introduced the project and is a member of board in the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. In my opinion the connection between the construction business interests and the museum project should not be hidden as they are both essential to the activities of Carl Gustaf Ehrnrooth. The split request of a page is neither a valid reason for the speedy deletion. In my opinion the deletion should be reverted immediately. I try to learn how to do it. Watti Renew (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Link: fi:Guggenheim Helsinki –suunnitelma. Finnish link is automatically changed to error one. Please check the Russian one ru:Музей Гуггенхайма в Хельсинки. Watti Renew (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your message here actually illustrates the very reason why the article was deleted, and makes it clear that you have not understood the reason for the deletion at all. Wikipedia does not exist in order to enable people to promote a particular point of view, or to "expose", attack, or criticise people who do things they don't like. If you wish to conduct a campaign against a particular person, or what he is doing, then you are perfectly free to do so, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. I neither know nor care what the articles you refer to in Finnish and Russian Wikipedia say. Even if they do contain the kind of information you have tried to use English Wikipedia to publicise, that does nothing at all to show that the content is suitable here. It may be that those two Wikipedias have different standards in this matter than English Wikipedia, or it may be that they are unsuitable there too, and should be deleted (you may find it helpful to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. In neither of those cases is the presence of the articles there a reason for having a similar article here. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- No matter what I think or you think, the article is relevant in my opinion by its content. My English may be bad and expressions difficult to formulate but look YIT is among OMX Helsinki 25 companies.
Pöyry is also known international company. Carl Gustaf Ehrnrooth is with his brothers the biggest owner of Pöyry and YIT. This makes the page relevant alone. The memebership in the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation is worth to mentionm don't you agree? No matter what I think of it this person - he has also a part in the Modern Art Museum Kiasma that is hiding the statue of Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim and Finlandia Hall. You may demand change in the content but it is not in my opinion sufficient to delete the page. I agree that I do not like this museum in the present place intended. It would hide the orthodox church view as you can see in the page: ru:Музей Гуггенхайма в Хельсинки. In my opinion large monuments need a lot of free space around and the see shores should be free of buildings. No matter what I think the facts with reference deserve place. I am sure there are more references available. Watti Renew (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Much of your message seems to be aimed at persuading me that the subject is notable. That, however, is irrelevant, as the deletion was not made on notability grounds. You also suggest (if I understand you correctly) that the fact that the content was purely an attempt to denigrate its subject "is not in [your] opinion sufficient to delete the page". However, whether it is sufficient in your opinion or in my opinion is irrelevant. What matters is whether it is sufficient reason for deletion according to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is that any page whose sole purpose is to disparage its subjest should be deleted. My job as an administrator is to do my best to implement Wikipedia policy, and whether I agree with the policy on this particular occasion or not is irrelevant, and so is whether you agree with the policy or not. (For what it is worth, I do sometimes take administrative actions with which I personally disagree, because it is what Wikipedia's polices or guidelines require.)
- Of less importance, but some interest, in my opinion, is the strange logic of the statement "No matter what I think or you think, the article is relevant in my opinion". (My emphasis.) I fail to understand how your opinion can be independent of what you think. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am not here for fighting. I like to settle the discussion in peace soon in order to concentrate in the articles. Based on your comment we may think alike i.e. the removals has to be based on Wikipedia:Policies. The disagreement may be a misunderstanding. Since the discussion involves also other persons: Where should I discuss the return of the article in detail? I agree the article did not include all the references but this is common and can be fixed. I wrote a new Guggenheim Helsinki –Plan. Watti Renew (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I removed your proposed deletion tag, because the subject is a 'University Professor', the highest academic rank, thus passing WP:PROF. 19:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
- I don't by any means fully understand American academic posts. However, as is well known, in most American universities being a "professor" means little if anything more than being a university lecturer with a permanent post, and is certainly nowhere near "the highest academic rank", many very junior lecturers being "professors". (This contrasts strikingly with the use of the word "professor" in many other countries, such as the United Kingdom, where it is indeed a very high rank. On the other hand, it contrasts in the other direction with countries such as France, where the title "professeur" is given even to high school teachers.) Does a "university professor" mean something more specific in the USA than just a professor in a university? If so, then you may well be right. Perhaps you can enlighten me. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) "University professor" just means he teaches at a college (Americans can be egalitarian that way). This specific guy Schwartz, on the other hand, was Dean of the Boston University School of Law from 1980 to 1988; is an honorary member of the National College of Probate Judges; and was a member of the Legal Advisory Board of the New York Stock Exchange. He's a director of a major corporation (Viacom) and was Chairman of UST Inc.. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Then shouldn't this information be in the article, with proper citations (not just a bunch of external links)? I just read the article, and besides Viacom it doesn't seem to include most of this information, and none of the information there is cited. Just adding this information would practically double the size of the article as well. Don Lammers (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. Just being a professor means squat, and doesn't meet the requirements for notability in and of itself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, not being one to just talk about things, I have added the information above (plus some more), changed the references which were really just external links to more or less proper citations, and rearranged the article in the proper order. I don't know much about biographical articles, so hopefully someone else can put in an infobox. There are now three citations, and from these the article can probably be expanded even a bit more. The External links should probably be turned into citations as well, but I'm too lazy to do that. Now at least if the article gets deleted it will be on the basis of something other than that the guy was "just a professor". Don Lammers (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks folks for the teamwork! Bearian (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, not being one to just talk about things, I have added the information above (plus some more), changed the references which were really just external links to more or less proper citations, and rearranged the article in the proper order. I don't know much about biographical articles, so hopefully someone else can put in an infobox. There are now three citations, and from these the article can probably be expanded even a bit more. The External links should probably be turned into citations as well, but I'm too lazy to do that. Now at least if the article gets deleted it will be on the basis of something other than that the guy was "just a professor". Don Lammers (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. Just being a professor means squat, and doesn't meet the requirements for notability in and of itself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Then shouldn't this information be in the article, with proper citations (not just a bunch of external links)? I just read the article, and besides Viacom it doesn't seem to include most of this information, and none of the information there is cited. Just adding this information would practically double the size of the article as well. Don Lammers (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) "University professor" just means he teaches at a college (Americans can be egalitarian that way). This specific guy Schwartz, on the other hand, was Dean of the Boston University School of Law from 1980 to 1988; is an honorary member of the National College of Probate Judges; and was a member of the Legal Advisory Board of the New York Stock Exchange. He's a director of a major corporation (Viacom) and was Chairman of UST Inc.. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
2tor, Inc
This must be some mistake. Please review the content of the article, see the references, see the unambiguous notability of this very Wikipedia-worthy enterprise. Thanks!74.101.76.213 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- What has notability got to do with it? The article was deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion", not as non-notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I hadn't read your comment properly when I indefblocked him. I'll unblock if you prefer. TerriersFan (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was actually borderline for blocking myself. I am happy to accept your decision. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
unsalting request
Hi there, last year we had a user repeatedly create poor micro stubs of yet-to-debut footballers. Most were deleted, some were salted. One of those, Paul Seedsman (footballer) made his professional debut yesterday, so can you please unsalt Paul Seedsman and move the disambiguated page to the primary topic. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Done JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Template Deletion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--J36miles (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Blocking
Can you block me and User:JDamanWP from editing Wikipedia for a while, it seems he use reason that not in policy to remove the contents and of course it can cause edit warring. Thank you. --Aleenf1 15:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I certainly won't issue self and take me with another guy block requests, but the page is full protected for a month, and here is an SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Expewikiwriter
Hi there, a few new socks have turned up (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter), since you dealt with the sockmaster, I thought I'd best bring it to your attention to be dealt with.
Cheers, 86.** IP (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)
Done Dealt with by me earlier. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
SPI that I need you to look at
Could you look at this SPI since you made a few of the original blocks to determine a length for the master I blocked? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Done JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Profoto article
Hello Mr. James B. Watson,
My name is Olle Lindeberg. I work at Profoto AB, the Swedish flash manufacturer. We added an article about our company and company history a couple of years ago. This articls has now been deleted two times, with ref to:
11:44, 15 March 2012 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Profoto (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) 17:21, 1 October 2010 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted page Profoto (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
We would really like to have an article up on Wikipedia, to show the history of our company and the facts around. I understand that "unambiguous advertising" has no place on Wikipedia. Can you please help me to define "unambiguous advertising", so that we don't make the same mistake again?
Looking forward to your response and to be able to contribute to Wikipedia.
Kind regards. Profoto AB 07:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profoto AB (talk • contribs)
- (talk page stalker) This account has been blocked as a spamusername account. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive 13
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Answered there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey Fitzpatrick (talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 April 2012
Episerver wikipedia page.
Hi there,
My name is Joakim and I am trying to figure out what happened to the Episerver wikipedia page in English. It seems it was deleted and I can see that you had previously been an editor for an article that on the whole seemed accurate (although by now a little bit outdated). We are really keen on having this page display again as I can see that many of our partners have it as a reference. I am not sure how I can go about having this page come back on, but would be delighted if you could shed any light on that.
You can reach me at [email protected] Thanks in advance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smartse/EPiServer
Best Joakim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjholquist (talk • contribs)
- See the advice I gave your colleague: User_talk:KrisRandal#Advice. You should also read WP:MFA, WP:CORP and WP:COI. If you work on User:KrisRandal/sandbox and leave me a note, I can see if it is ready to be moved back to being an article. SmartSE (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. I have now made some edits. When you get a chance, have a look and see if it is ready to be published.
Best Joakim
- Not that I can see. I just removed a pure misunderstanding/misquoting of Gartner. What is actually NOTABLE about the software ... nothing that we can see. Please also remember to sign your posts on talkpages with 4 tilde's ~~~~, and ensure you do not have WP:COI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I just went in and expanded the citations and added a category. In no way does this have any bearing on notability -- it's just some article infrastructure cleanup. I realize that as a person in the company, you think it's important. The question is, why should I care about this company? Don Lammers (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Okey - thanks. I am not entirely sure what you refer to as a misquoting of Gartner, as I was only trying to say that it was featured as a visionary in their Magic Quadrant which is accurate source At any rate, I am not to argue about the distinctiveness of the company. What I can say is that it is an important software vendor in the Scandinavian countries, which can be seen from the rather extensive wiki in Swedish Episerver wiki Swedish It was also part of the English up until 2010, when for some reason someone made improper edits that caused it to be deleted. From a comparative approach it is also peculiar that Danish software vendor Sitecore, which is notingly similar across all aspects are featuring a rather extensive wikipedia page in English Sitecore on wikipedia I think the appropiate thing would be to have a short wiki on Episerver in English, which will likely trigger third parties to add some additional information down the road. Thanks.
--Mjholmquist (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Mjholmquist
Any update on these latest edits? --Mjholmquist (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Still not notable in the slightest. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- All of the references are either unreliable sources or not independent sources, or both. For example, there is www.echannelline.com, which says of itself "Our core capability is helping Vendors sell more products", and there is www.crunchbase.com, which describes itself as "the free directory of technology companies, people, and investors that anyone can edit." There is no evidence anywhere that I can find that the subject comes anywhere remotely near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the draft article has clearly been written with the purpose of promoting the software. Wikipedia is not a free tool for marketing people to promote their products. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- A couple more comments.
- "We are really keen on having this page display again as I can see that many of our partners have it as a reference" indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, which does not exist to serve the commercial interests of businesses, or to help them communicate with other businesses they have dealings with.
- The article was deleted because a discussion at articles for deletion concluded that the subject did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. I restored and userfied the article on request from an editor who thought that it would be possible to provide evidence of notability. However, after a few days short of 6 months, there is no more evidence of notability than there was at the time of the deletion discussion. It therefore seems that for the restoration and userfication have not served their intended purpose, and the page qualifies for speedy deletion as a repost of an page deleted after a deletion discussion. Userfication of a deleted article is intended to be a short term measure to allow a chance to improve it, not a long term way of saving an article that a discussion has decided should be deleted. I am not deleting it now, but I am mentioning the matter here to make it clear that the page is likely to be deleted unless evidence of notability is forthcoming very soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Offending image - please remove
Hello, we have noticed an image - File:SCG-BiH 1-0 (pred tekmu7) wc2006 qual Marakana Oct12 2005.jpg - to be racially offending the Bosnian community. On the banner it reads Bijeljina Serbia - Bosnia never. This is racism. Bijeljina is clearly in Bosnia and NOT in Serbia. Having this image promotes negativity and spreads hatred in the country and for that reason I plead with you to help us remove it from Wikipedia. Thanks (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- The picture is about a football match between Serbia and Bosnia, and what user BiHVolim is refering is a banner brought from the people of Bijeljina, which btw is located in Bosnia but very close to Serbian border and inhabited mostly by Serbs. The banner basically says they are supporting Serbia, and not Bosnia.
- I do not support any kind of nationalism, but I also don´t support exagerations such as these being used just because people don´t like, or can´t accept, part of their reality. If user BiHVolim can´t deal with the fact that numerous inhabitants from that part of his country still feel attached to Serbia, and support Serbia instead of Bosnia in a match between them, that is his problem. Sorry to be tough on you BiHVolim, but it is actually you who is bringing nationalism and hateriot and with that being offensive, while trying to missinform by manipulating sensitivities. That was a UEFA official match, and if there was anything offensive written, UEFA usually takes action and sanctions it, and nothing of that happend, so we really cannot have only pictures from certain matches that exclude bannes just because some users simply dislike (btw, I didn´t even knew what was written in the banner until you mentioned it). Just as curiosity, how a banner supporting Serbia "promotes negativity and spreads hateriot"? And where is that the isse of race is mentioned? Also, who is "us"? FkpCascais (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, looking to it now (File:SCG-BiH 1-0 (pred tekmu7) wc2006 qual Marakana Oct12 2005.jpg) the picture has its focus on the players on the pitch, and where the mentioned banner is, that seems to be an entire area where Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina came to support Serbia, as just bellow the banner you see flags saying "Приједор" (Prijedor), "Лакташи" (Laktaši) and "Хан Пијесак" (Han Pijesak) all towns in Bosnia with strong precence of Serbian population, so there is actually nothing strange in the fact that they support Serbia, what is actually strange is that you BiHVolim argue for a unified Bosnia but then feel offended when part (and Serbs are large part) simply express themselfs. You even said that they "spread hatred in the country" wow, to start with I´ll ask you "in what country", as the match is played in Serbia, they are expressing their support to Serbia, and it is found in the Serbia national football team article, so again, how is this offensive to you? Or you mean that anyone from Bosnia who doesn´t support Bosnia in a football match is a "racist guy promoting negativity and spreading hateriot" so "we" must plea to remove them all? I apologise JamesBWatson, but as you said on his talk page, admins usually don´t have time to know all this details, but that is exactly why I find offensive this type of sensible missinformations of the kind "I hope no one noteces this and I´ll exagerate all the way...". Just for your information, I have nothing to do with the problems that user has had, I just share several articles on my watchlist with him, so that is how I came to this thread. FkpCascais (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC
- The idea that we should remove an image because it shows that some people hold a particular view, and certain nationalists wish to suppress the fact that that view is held, is totally contrary to the principles in which Wikipedia is founded. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Expewikiwriter subpages
Hi James,
You blocked Expewikiwriter (talk · contribs).
- 07:32, 30 March 2012 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) blocked Expewikiwriter (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: and using Wikipedia for promotion)
Should we delete all of his userspace pages, as suggested at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Expewikiwriter/Test Page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- At present, all but two of the userspace pages are just redirects. Some of the redirects are to articles under consideration at AfD, so they can be deleted if and when the AfDs close as "delete", but unless and until that happens there is no particular reason to remove the redirects. Of the two userspace pages that are not redirects, one is under consideration for deletion at the MfD discussion, and the other is User:Expewikiwriter, which merely holds a sockpuppet notice, so there's nothing to be done there. I see that most of the articles created by this user are currently being considered at AfD, and personally I would not mind seeing all the others disappear too. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
ANI notification
Apparently you reopened a case at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Wiki_user:Fasttimes68_is_vandalizing_pages_referencing_celebrity_model_Stephanie_Adams after it was initially closed. Not that it this close/open situation happens a lot, but if it does could you please notify the subjects again? I visited this case after it was closed so I didn't bother to comment. Thanks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. Nearly all the contributions to the discussion were from administrators, who probably regularly check ANI and saw what had happened, so there was probably no harm done. However, it is just as well to be sure, so I have belatedly informed everyone who took part in the discussion, inviting them to start a new section if they have any more to say on the issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was just pointing out that the section was closed, and it was reopened again without notifications made to ME, the subject of the discussion. Since the discussion was initially closed (which I saw after visiting) I didn't bother to visit again, and then noticed later it once again open when I looked at ANI for a different reason. My concern is that discussion could have been taking place on an incident related to me for a matter that I thought was closed. No harm done and I'm sure this situation is pretty rare. Thanks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Happy Easter!
Happy Easter! Hope your day is great! Yasht101 11:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
i'm not so much bad faith as some editors think
because of the Mohombi / image issue, i see that you guys want to block me. i admit that before my block in January, i was disruptive, but now i'm trying to expand Wikipedia, especially the articles Need for Speed: Nitro and Need for Speed: Undercover. if you look at my contribution list, you'll see good faith edits. also, i'm sort of new to Wikipedia. i make a lot of mistakes. if you see a mistake, please kindly tell me what's wrong and tell me how to correct it on my talk page. don't block me or threaten me with blocks. i'm just any other Indian teenage dude. Jawadreventon (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't want to block you. I am much happier to see you leave disruptive editing, and contribute constructively than to block you. It was not a question of threatening you with a block, but a question of warning you that you would be likely to be blocked if you went on the way you were. The best outcome is for you to take notice of the warnings and make better edits. If Wikipedia had existed when I was a teenager I bet I would have been a bit disruptive for a while and then settled down, and I am perfectly willing to accept that people can improve. As for mistakes, yes, we all make them, me too. As long as you are willing to correct your mistakes and learn to do better, that's fine. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Calabe1992 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense writing
I'm assuming that when someone edits on a wikipedia page, that it needs to make sense, have good spelling, grammar, no personal statements, be relevant and so on? Well then I need to inform an administrator on the Lone Wolf and Cub page. IP address 72.185.61.209 keeps putting down
- One of the Person of interest tv show series is named :"Wolf and a cub"[8]
I can't make sense of that at all, the live action Television series all ready has a section and this user is not really explaining themselves on any of the edits that he/she is doing and has been given warnings.[9] If this is something that your not sure of what to do, could you inform another administrator who would be best suited for this?108.82.4.116 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- You could change it yourself to make sense. After all that's what this project is all about. Mrlittleirish 08:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, changing it to make sense would be better than leaving it as incoherent non-English. However, there are still difficulties with that approach. Firstly, what exactly is the incoherent text supposed to mean? Superficially it looks as though it means "One of the people of interest in the tv show series is named :'Wolf and a cub'", but that seems an unlikely name. Secondly, is there a source anywhere for this? I can't find one. Unfortunately simply editing the text to say something that makes sense but may not be correct and is unsourced is not really a helpful way of dealing with the problem. A far better approach is to explain to the editor what the problem is, and make suggestions how to proceed. So far the editor has not been given any constructive advice about this at all: just a warning about "vandalism", with no explanation as to what the problem is. I will try giving the editor advice, which anyone could have done. If the problem continues after that, please feel free to contact me again, and I will consider whether any administrative action is necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- fixed. thank you for being respectful.
72.185.61.209 (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
An olive branch, as I promised the now blocked editor
Hi JamesBW. See: User talk:Sayyedmajidali#About "Ek Kiran Roshni Ki" and User:Shirt58/Ek Kiran Roshni Ki.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The user is welcome to request an unblock. If they indicate an understanding of the reason for the block, and a willingness to avoid doing the same things again, then I see no reason not to consider such a request sympathetically. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Your message
James, I never received the original email you referred to, it may well have gone in the spam bin. Will check this evening. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I did wonder if something like that might have happened. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- It was in the spam folder,
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I see you unblocked User:Gaba p, fair enough, but the first thing he did was repeat the same bad faith attacks that got him blocked in the first place. As I said in my email, I`ve no interest in his identity but he does seem bent on confrontation rather than collaboration. I would very much appreciate it if you were to keep an eye on his editing for a while. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. I did have doubts about unblocking, but decided to give him a chance. If he decides to throw that chance away then that will be his choice. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Wee Curry Monster talk 15:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I was about to start cleaning up some of this user's contributions and I see you noted in an edit summary removing link to non-existent image (deleted?). Just for your information, and probably unsurprisingly, all the images were copyvios and I'd tagged them as such at Commons - so yes they've all been deleted. I'll clean up any remaining links. QU TalkQu 20:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have now realised that was the situation, having looked at the user's talk page on commons, but I didn't know at the time I made the edit you refer to. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sneh Chakraburtty
Hello JamesBWatson,
This message is in reply to what Bearcat sent me on 14th March and then what you sent me on 26th March regarding Sneh Chakraburtty.
Here is a list of the articles mentioning Sneh Chakraburtty.
-The Medical Post: Sneh has been interviewed by The Medical Post in articles during her working years - Two Research articles with Dr. Ranjit Chandra in the late 70's when she was at Memorial University in Newfoundland. - An interview in The Voice in Minden, Ontario. The newspaper has folded but the article can be found on this website. - The Echo of Haliburton about the book Spiritual Journey, in 2002 or 2003.The reporter was Cheryl Loukes who is now with R.D. Lawrence Museum. - 3 books have been accepted and released by Perfect Publishers of UK: Spiritual Journey, Universal Religion, In the Biginninjg. They are also available on Amazon. - The wisdom magazine: they published an extract from one of her books.
I hope these references will be enough. Thanks, RachelGB-11/04/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelGB (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is interesting, but not directly relevant to my note to you, which was simply informing you that we don't have articles for promotional purposes. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It's just that I don't really know who to contact so that they can check the references and articles Regards, RachelGB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelGB (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Message from OneEssence
James, or Watson, if you would like to delete a page which someone has spent some time writing at least have the decency to discuss the issues that you have with the page in question with the author. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneEssence (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have posted some links to your talk page. I hope they help to clarify the reason for the deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Message from 12.94.229.226
trust me. my mom is writing out the family names. ill give you your citation after that. namaste. clay edward weinaug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.229.226 (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by that, but I do know that your edits have added completely unexplained text, with no context to explain what they refer to. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
One Call Insurance
Why do you keep deleting the One Call Insurance wiki page i keep creating? I am the systems and network developer for the company and I have been instructed to create this page. You have no reason to delete the page. If you have then I would love to hear the reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve16190 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't "keep deleting" it: I have deleted it once. The reasons, as you will have seen both in the deletion log and on your talk page, were that the article did not indicate that the subject was significant enough to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia, and that it was promotional. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything, and in order to be the subject of an article, a topic has to demonstrate notability. Wikipedia is also not a free advertising service, and articles which exist to promote, advertise, or publicise their subjects are unacceptable. Finally, since you work for the business, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing on the subject at all. A Wikipedia article needs to be written from an independent, third party, point of view. You are, however, welcome to contribute to the encyclopaedia on other topics, in which you don't have a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Pazmiño: Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)
I noticed you proposed deletion of the article Pazmiño. I'm not quite sure as to why you proposed the deletion. It is, like a great many other articles on wikipedia, an article of anthroponym. Such articles include Johnson, Bettencourt, Smith, and hundreds of other articles, all of which are historically "notable", no more and no less "notable" than the other.
It is my arguemnt that the history of the Pazmiño clan and lineage is of historical notability, relating to the history of notable Ecuadorian conquistadors, founders of cities, and their place in society in the past and present
The article lists the history of the clan, and then also serves as a page listing the many prominant people of that lineage, which is what every other similar page does. My argument is that if it is deleted, then every other article of the same nature should be deleted to. The Pazmiño article, however, is one of historical notability, at par with every other anthroponymic articles which rightfully exist on Wikipedia.
Please reconsider your proposition for its delition.