JBW

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, unless you request otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Semi-Protecting Sandbox

An IP adress, (71.96.192.153) posted a wrongful message in the sandbox. This may be uncommon, I do not know. Is their any way that the sandbox can be semi-protected so that people must register to use sandbox? This would make them able to be blocked.

Thank you, Winliveuser. Please reply at User Talk:Winliveuser —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

No, because the whole point of the sandbox is that it should be available to all new users, with or without an account. Individual IP addresses can be blocked if they persist in unconstructive editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Niche market article

I noticed you reverted an external link I inserted in the niche market article without making any mention on the talk page. The site does comply with the policy mentioned in your editing reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_market

I have restored the link. Please commence discussion on the talk page why this external link isn't suitable. Thanks.180.191.82.41 (talk)

It's spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Ryan Vesey's talk page.
Message added 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen and responded. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Again

I just wanted to say thanks again for trusting me and helping me get unblocked. It is sort of weird to see that just a week ago I was blocked and now I am on Huggle's whitelist. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ironwood Pig Sanctuary

You recently speedy deleted the article Ironwood Pig Sanctuary under G5, whilst the page may well have been created by a banned user (I assume this was the case but don't know for sure) the content seemed to me to be legitimate, the sources checked out and it even made the main page as a DYK. Seems a bit daft to delete decent content just because of who created it so I'd like to request that the article be restored. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 13:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue of whether it is "a bit daft" to delete under these circumstance has been debated at length, and consensus was that the pros outweighed the cons. However, looking back I see that substantial amounts of test were added by other editors, so I have restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably could have worded it a bit better than daft -I knew that numerous editors had worked on it to get it ready for DYK but wasn't sure what the rules were on this type of issue. Can you restore the talk page as well? I'm not sure if it was tagged for any WikiProjects etc - Basement12 (T.C) 14:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Actually I think "daft" is a reasonable word to use. I can see both the pros and the cons, and if you look at only one side it does look daft. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Transformice

I see that this article I re-created was deleted as per WP:SPEEDY quicker than I could even say anything. However, I only re-created it after contacting the Admin who last deleted and subsequently WP:SALTed the page. I informed them with the following message:

"It's been over eight months since the article has been deleted and I feel the game has become much more notable now rather than in June 2010, which was a month after the game's release. The site now ranks in the top 40,000's of Alexa's Traffic Rank. It's won a Mochi People's Choice Award in its Flash Gaming Summit 2011. The site polls over 1,000,000 results in Google and is recognized by Newgrounds, Kotaku, Kongregate and has over 180,000 likes on Facebook. Back in June 2010, the game was solely French, running on French servers, but has since expanded to English, Russian, Brazilian and Chinese. The game has garnered a much larger fan following in the past eight months. In addition, the main instigator for the WP:SALT placement during the AfD Discussion was identified as a sockpuppet and subsequently blocked from Wikipedia." (User talk:Courcelles/Archive 69#Transformice)

I was then instructed to make a sandbox page, which I did, outlining each of the aspects of notability and creating what I felt was a solidly-written article with as many sources as I could dig up. Courcelles then un-salted it and said that while it may not get G4'd (as it just did) it may go back into AfD.

That being said, the message left on my channel states that I created a "repost of material that was previously deleted." That is untrue. Everything in that article I wrote myself. I had no access to the original material anyway since the article was deleted. It is different from the original because it deals with the sourcing issue (as per what I've read from the original AfD) and adheres to Wikipedia standards. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 13:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Although the wording of the article was quite different from the old version, the content was largely similar. However, I accept your other points, and have restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 13:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, I have a new question though. Actually, two. What should I do about the Speedy deletion tag as it says "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself," even though the article's been restored? Also, does the talk page get restored as well or do I need to re-make it? ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 13:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've now done them both. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks again! ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 13:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Glitch Art

Hey James,

I'm an open-source practitioner and a big fan of wikipedia. I also happen to be a glitch theorist/practitioner and an active member of that community. I created the first Glitch Art wiki page some years back. I realize the page was flawed, I'll admit I'm not the most encyclopedic writer and I have a lot to learn about the rules of this community but I don't know that the page's imperfections (no pun intended) was cause for deletion. I've been meaning to work on the page for a while, but have been preoccupied with life stuff. Many others have worked on the page while its been up and have helped with its shortcomings and many more have used the page as a resource (both are contingent on the page remaining up and accessible).

Is it possible to reinstate the page, and if not what needs to be done to make that possible?

thanks, -Nick Briz- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.3.131 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already restored and userfied the page in response to a request from another user. It is at User:Freshacconci/Glitch art so that it can be worked on until it is ready to be relaunched as an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank You (Windows Live Skydrive)

Thank you for the help with the Windows Live Skydrive Article. I do however, not see how I damaged it. If you could please contact me with further information, that would be a big help.

~WinLiveUser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winliveuser (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you have got the wrong person. It was FleetCommand who reverted your edit to that article and said you had "damaged" it, not me. In fact I have never touched the article, nor commented on it to you or to anyone else. However, to help you I have looked at your edit, and I think I can see what the problem was. There was a reference in the article, beginning with <ref>{{cite web |url = ... and ending with ... |accessdate = November 27, 2010 }}</ref>. You placed text inside this reference, and also put a closing "}}" inside the reference, so that it began <ref>{{cite web}} per file uploaded. |url = ... This prevents the Wikimedia software from properly recognising the reference. The messages to learn from this are (1) don't put text between <ref> and </ref> unless it is part of the reference, and (2) always click "Show preview" and check that your edit produces the effect that you intended before going ahead with clicking "Save page". JamesBWatson (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Where to make huge changes to a page at

I am trying to completely overhaul the page Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary). Right now I am doing it at User:Ryan Vesey/sandbox 2. The only problem I see with that is that if I copy it on to the mainspace, all of the individual edits and summaries are lost. Is it better to do it the way I am doing it now, or add a under construction template to the page? Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If you copy and paste your sandbox copy you will, of course, lose your own edit summaries, but you will just have to judge how much you think that matters. I do think that having individual justifications for particular changes is very helpful, and sometimes it can much reduce the risk of another editor seeing a whole load of changes they don't see the reason for, and reverting the lot. You will also write over edits from other people, which may sometimes be more important. If there are just a few edits from other people then it probably doesn't matter much: you can make a judgement as to whether those edits are worth keeping, and if they are you can restore them with an edit summary saying you are restoring other edits which were overwritten by your big edit. The worst problems, I think, arise in cases where, while you have been extensively editing your userspace copy of the article, others have been extensively editing the article itself. It can sometimes then be very difficult to transfer you edits to the article and avoid unreasonably losing good work from other people. There is no absolutely perfect answer, but my own opinion is that it is generally better to edit the article where it is than to work on a private copy and then transfer it. Really, using a private copy that you intend to later paste into the article is only workable if nobody else is making significant contributions to the article, and in that case it is perfectly easy to just edit the article in place anyway, so there's not much advantage in using a private copy. Editing a userspace copy and then copying it over runs the risk of riding roughshod over other people's work, giving the effect of taking ownership of the article. I am not suggesting taht that is what you intend, because if so you wouldn't have asked about it, you would have just gone ahead and done it, but I think that, whatever the intention, sometimes that can be the effect. My preference is therefore to edit the article in place, with or without an "under construction" template, as you see fit. There is a risk this way that other people will make edits that unintentionally obstruct your plan, but that is by no means certain to happen, and in any case that is a hazard you just have to accept if you edit Wikipedia. "Better to edit in place" is, of course, just my opinion, but it is based on seeing problems that have arisen in the past with this sort of thing. My own editing has usually been making lots of little improvements, and I have not often made major rewrites of articles, but on the few occasions when I when I have, I have found that editing the article in place has worked OK. In fact occasionally this has even had an advantage, because others have improved my editing as I have gone along. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, do you think then that I should bring over what I have so far? Or do you think it would be better for me to just examine my edits and redo them? Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that you've done it I would suggest just copying it over. It isn't the way I would have recommended, but it doesn't look to me as though there is any serious risk of problems. There has been scarcely any other editing of the article, and the couple of tiny changes there have been have been included in your own editing anyway. The loss of individual edit summaries is a disadvantage, but only a minor one, and not enough to make it worth the extra trouble of making loads of little edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it better to use a relatively poor source or no source at all? A lot of the information in the article I am working is either unsourced or missing in-line citations. I have been searching the web for more; however, most of my academic databases I use bring up little information. One of the first websites I can find is [this one] and it is also listed under external links. While the page is a little less than desirable, it would allow me to source much of the content on that page. Should I use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Vesey (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 May 2011

I think I am probably more concerned about quality of sources than a lot of Wikipedians, and I tend to take the line "if there are no reliable sources then the information should not be included". However, even I don't think it's reasonable to be totally dogmatic about this, and each case needs to be judged on its merits. I have had a quick glance at the source you mentioned, and I agree it doesn't look all that great, but I have not studied it in depth, and don't intend to spend the time doing so. Having said that, for what it's worth my feelings are as follows. If you mean "should I use this source or include the information without a source" then my answer is that some source is better than none, assuming of course that we are not talking about a source of no value at all, such as a hoax. If you mean "should I use this source or leave the information out of the article because there is no good source" then you will just have to use your judgement. If I were doing it, and I was really confident that the information was reliable, even though I couldn't find as good a source as I would like, I would be inclined to include it. However, if you do include information for which you think the sourcing is less than perfect then I think that if anyone contests it you should be willing to back down gracefully, and not try to defend it. An editor can do much more constructive work for Wikipedia by accepting that in a particular case there is not a good basis for their version and moving on to other work than by wasting loads of time battling to try to keep their version. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sexyking54321

This user is continuing to recreate hoaxes on his talk page, despite warnings. Would it be possible to change his block settings to prevent him from editing his talk ? Anthem 10:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of English

Hi, I was wondering if this is an advice or a rule. To be exact, What happens if you ask a user to use English and send him/her a warning, but he/she does not listen to you and keeps on using other languages. Are they going to be blocked by an admin ? Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. However, the idea that English Wikipedia uses English is a pretty firm principal. Wikipedia works by discussion, consensus, and agreement, and it is impossible to achieve those if an editor persists in using a language which most of us don't understand. If an editor does it a couple of times despite being politely informed that it is not a good idea I would remind them a bit more forcefully. I would only take administrative action in the case of someone who was so persistent as to be obstructive. However, as a last resort I would be prepared to consider blocking as an option. If you have a particular case in mind please do feel welcome to point me to the particular editor in question, so that I can let you know what I think, and try to help if appropriate. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Fortunately the case I'm following is not in the English Wikipedia. I just want to use it as a reference for another wiki. Cheers, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 04:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Awatef Rasheed

I wrote autobiography supported with links and references, why would I get messages from you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awatef Rasheed (talk • contribs) 12:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you give more information about your question? Which of the two messages I have given you is not clear, and in what way? The one about removing maintenance templates was given because, at it says, you removed maintenance templates without explaining why. the one about writing an autobiographical article was given because, as it says, you did so, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines. I am honestly not sure what clarification you need. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

		The Adopt-a-user Barnstar
		For assisting me with all of my questions and always providing excellent information. Thank you for all the thought you have put into your messages for me. Ryan Vesey (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary)

Can you help me format the picture I added to the page? I would like it to appear on top of the protestant missionaries template. If I place it directly above the two appear side by side, so I added spaces between the image and the template.; however, when I did that the text got pushed down. I believe there is a workaround to this. Currently, I have it placed below the template on the screen, I think this is less visually appealing and it hides the "Edit" button for the section "Missionary Work." Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to deal with this. I suggest asking at Wikipedia:Help desk. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Troll attack

For me it is clearly a troll attack what user Intoronto1125 did. I met this guy already once, when he made around 20 Afds within 5 minutes on badminton articles, with the result, that a lot of people had work with discussions and so on. The result was, that all the articles were kept. I talked already this time to him, that what he is doing is not the right way - I think in a very civil way. And now he nominates me on the administrators noticeboard for vandalism, because I reverted 20 edits within 2 minutes? Without looking at the content of the reverts! These (mass) reverts happen daily very often, why he'd chosen me? "Perfectly good faith"? Never! I would call it revenge foul. --Florentyna (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment on ANI - I think you can close it: Please simply close this debate, again a lot of time lost for nothing. User:JamesBWatson (if I understood him right) agrees, that such reverts can happen, so nothing more to discuss about. --Florentyna (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Florentyna, the discussions were closed by me after your provided me the source. Those articles had to valid source so I nominated them for deletion, after you stepped up with a source I removed the AFD tag. Secondly, I am not targeting you, rather I when I clicked see contributions on your name, I saw this huge block of reverts and I decided to report it. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 19:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Winliveuser

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Winliveuser (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 May 2011

Replied. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi! looks like you blocked User:Sreekar akkineni for Sockpuppetry. But see Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh a new user User:Navelcleavage has requested for the same edit request what "Sreekar Akkineni" did just before he got blocked. I suspect the new one might be a sockpuppet. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 13:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a pointer to the edit by Sreekar akkineni that you are referring to? That editor has never either Cinema of Andhra Pradesh or Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh, and I can't see any other edit you may be referring to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well he was actually editing those pages without registering. Looks like he created this account yesterday only. Also have a look at here. He himself has confessed that he was the IP user who made such edits. It's obvious that he is the same IP user. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

156.61.160.1

Thank you for blocking. I see from its block log that it appears to be a stable or fixed IP for that indef'd user, and that it's not the first time he's evaded his block this way.[1] You might want to consider a longer block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I did seriously consider a longer block, but there were a lot of edits that were not obviously from the same user, and some of them were constructive. However, I will certainly be willing to reconsider this if problems recur when the block ends. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that it's all him. But we'll see how things work out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ABG1997.
Message added 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Teraminer's talk page.
Message added 09:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

sonia♫ 09:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 09:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen and responded. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for helping me with my account till now...I will take care of wikipedia:notability with my articles as you have requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsguc (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Novia Financial/Wrapp Accounts/RDR in the UK

Hi JamesBWatson. I am interested in adding and editing content regarding the big regulatory changes taking polace in UK retail financial services (RDR) and the way that they are having a seismic effect on the commercial landscape, like Bog Bang in 1986. However, I see that you deleted a page on Novia Financial when I was about to create one (I would like to cover all of teh key emregent protagonists in this area). I'm not sure whether you deleted it primarily for reasons of G11 or A7 - if the former, I would like to recreate without the advertising element. If it was primarily A7, I would like to ask you to reconsider - please see my edit of Retail Financial Services within FSA, where I have started to cover the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshmeister (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Toshmeister#Novia Financial/Wrapp Accounts/RDR in the UK JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

zeibekiko's source

There is a source that has been citied in article zeibekiko this is "Babiniotis, Georgios (1998). "ζεϊμπέκικος". Lexiko tis Neas Ellinikis Glossas. Athens: Kentro Lexikologias. p. 709". I read You exactly the line - Zeibek were Greek warriors of Asia minor- .So I d like to explain in public the reason that You reverted the edits from ip 79.130.92.92 without warning please:} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.45.206 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the edit was made as part of an extended edit war by one editor acting against consensus. "Without warning" is inaccurate: the editor had received warning about edit warring on their talk page, and the same edit had previously been reverted more than once by other editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont speak about what other ips does, I talk about the worlds, the line says exactly: The name of the dance derives from the Zeibek who were Greek warriors of Asia minor so,whats the reason editing war or distorting the same source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.45.206 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand that. Your English is very unclear. Perhaps you would care to clarify it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I thing I m talking to smart persons: more clarified from this? The name of the dance derives from the Zeibek who were Greek warriors of Asia minor You can buy the dictionary of Babiniotis,also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.45.206 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think I understand that. Evidently you think there is a source which supports the change you have made. However, I still don't understand your previous message. For example, what does "whats the reason editing war or distorting the same source" mean? The best guess I can make is that it means "I am so convinced that my source justifies the edit that I believe it overrides any consideration of edit-warring", but I am honestly not sure whether that is the correct interpretation. If that is what you meant, then the answer is simply that Wikipedia works by cooperation and consensus, not by one editor persistently trying to impose their preferred version when several others disagree. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(distorbing its not alway a good idea) I got the book of this reference its says it clearly and its exactly the same thing Im trying to explain you-end.Any reverse of this by this time it d be considered as vandalism and will be noted at "user talk-page" and wikipedia.Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.45.206 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

LiveChat

Hello JamesBWatson. I saw you reverted the AfD on LiveChat article. As I am the one who contributed to it the most and worked on it after it was initially listed as AfD, I feel obliged to ask you for comments or ideas on improving it. I am willing to work on the further improvements. Klim3k 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klim3k (talk • contribs)

I really don't know about the article, or ahve any particular opinion of it. I restored the AfD for purely proceduarl reasons, because it had been improperly closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: Klim3k

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Klim3k's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Heads up

Hi JBW. This page is up for deletion again (I nominated it). I noticed you participated in the discussion last time, and your comment from that discussion was quoted this time around. Please feel free to weigh in a second time if you wish. All the best, Neutrality^talk 22:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you see who is in the right, if anyone?

I recently tagged a couple of articles for deletion through various methods. There is a discussion on my talk page left by an admin who is a self described inclusionist. Could you offer some analysis of this? Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Stabile

Vic49 tagged Anthony Stabile as a G12. I declined it, because I think the license status of [2] is unclear (and I've said so at Copyright problems). Vic49 wondered if Anthony Stabile had been deleted earlier, and it has been (by you, which is why I'm here.) Had it been deleted via AfD or CSD, we could CSD the current version with G4, however it was a PROD, which I believe means it can be recreated. I think what happened was that someone copied the Prodded article into http://wiki.thesopranos.com/ which was then used as a basis for the most recent WP article.

I think the article has many problems; lack of proper attribution even if the licensing of the source is resolved, not to mention lack of references anywhere. However, I don't see that G12 applies. Just checking with you, because you were previously involved, to see if you have any additional thoughts.--SPhilbrickT 15:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to use AFD and I would like nominate the Anthony Stabile article up for deletion. Can you set it up? I would like to have a discussion about the articles credibility, the referencing and the notability of Stabile. Thanks --Vic49 (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

67.70.153.125

Please block this IP for several more months than you already have. He is an individual that we have been dealing with on Wikipedia since at least 2006. For more information, see my Sandbox page's first entry.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:IHateMarmite restore

done. thanks. Dlohcierekim

Nomorerainplease

How are they evading a block? As far as I can tell, the other account hasn't been used since March. They agreed, when we allowed the name change, to use only that account. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I saw an indefinitely blocked account which had never requested a name change. I saw another account which was clearly the same person, originally called "Greenarama ", later renamed to "Nomorerainplease". I saw no evidence that the name change was granted in the knowledge of the existence of the first account that I saw. It looked exactly like a case of block evasion, but I now see that it wasn't. How far this should be regarded as my fault, and how far it can be seen as an understandable mistake under the circumstances, I'm really not sure, but either way I have unblocked and apologised to the user. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, it was an honest mistake (which is another way of saying "learning experience" :-)). Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Can you tell me if it rises to the level of an attack page and/or a BLP violation when an indefinitely blocked editor devotes a large section of his talk page to complaining about another editor or editors? I am one of the editors being complained about and I am curious what steps I can take to have the harassing materials removed. I brought this to you because you were the editor that blocked Mindbunny for comments on his talk page & the cases seemed similar. Any guidance you could offer me would be appreciated. Thank you. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 11:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether it amounts to an attack depends on the nature the complaints, and how they are expressed. By default an indefinitely blocked editor is allowed talk page access in order for them to be able to post unblock requests and other material relating to their block. If they use talk page access for other purposes it could be considered abuse of that access, and if it is carried to excessive lengths could lead to talk page access being removed, but each case would have to be judged on its own merits. If you are referring to Jake Fuersturm, my assessment is that the edits are not helpful, but don't at present amount to a personal attack. My advice would be to walk away from this editor and ignore them. However, I will watch the editor's talk page in case things develop in any other directions. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll do that. Thanks James. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 12:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:In use

I considered nominating this template for deletion, but I wanted to get some thoughts on it first. I think it creates a sense of ownership in the article and discourages new editors. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have never been happy with this template. It seems to me to be contrary to the whole spirit of Wikipedia to suggest that an individual user has the right to tell others not to edit an article for an unspecified period. "To help avoid edit conflicts" on the face of it seems like a good reason, but edit conflicts can always happen, and it's not clear to me that effectively giving one editor special priority is a good way of avoiding such conflicts. If editor A is making extensive edits, why should that prevent editor B from making an occasional edit? There is the slight risk of an edit conflict, but that is not a big deal. Only if editors A & B both want to make extensive edits at the same time is there a significant risk of lots of edit conflicts, and in that case I'm not sure that giving to one of them the right to edit to the exclusion of the other is a good idea. Another point is that in my experience the template is often misused by editors who put it into an article and then walk away and leave it there. Of course the template says "Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited in several hours" (in small print), but the presence of the template is likely to frighten people off editing, especially inexperienced users. However, having said all that, which is just my opinion, this template is very well established, having been around since December 2003, and is used by Twinkle. I therefore think that there would be a good deal of opposition in any deletion discussion, and I am not sure how good would be your chance of success. However, that again is just my guess, and if you do want to try taking it to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion and suggest deletion then by all means feel free to do so. If you do then please tell me, so that I can contribute to the discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominated Please leave a notice on the page for the template, I cannot as it is has full protection. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: 86.0.41.189

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 86.0.41.189's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Son of return of the vandal

This vandal is back again, adding non-factual actors to cast lists, using User talk:64.75.121.3. Articles hit this time:

• Yu-Gi-Oh! (1998 TV series)
• List of Yu-Gi-Oh! characters
• Yu-Gi-Oh! 3D: Bonds Beyond Time
• Yu-Gi-Oh! (1998 TV series)
• The Berenstain Bears (1985 TV series)
• Night at the Museum
• Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
• John Fiedler
• David Ferry (actor)
• Dub Taylor
• George Carlin
• James Cosmo
• Daniel DeSanto
• Brian Cummings
• Tom Wayland
• Peter Linz

Maybe a block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just butting in: they seem to have stopped, for now. JBW, you know I'm new to this job--these edits are disruptive, clearly. In my opinion this rises to being blockable, and I'd very much like to hear what you have to say. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address and semiprotected the articles for 3 months. I really don't like protecting pages for that long, but this vandal keeps coming back, and it really is necessary. Many of these articles have been protected before, some of them more than once, but the problem has just come back. Usually "they seem to have stopped, for now" is a good reason for not blocking an IP, as blocks are meant to be preventive, and you can't prevent what has already stopped. However, it is clear from this vandal's history that the stopping is likely to be only temporary. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the fast action on keeping this person at bay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thepoliticalmaster

Please see my reply at WP:AIV. Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes!

No more vandalism, I get it I'll use the Sandbox!

--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Trumpkin

This user admitted to being a sockpuppeteer of over 80 puppets. I believe he needs his talk page access rights revoked. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Woops, it seems like he already had that revoked, another one of his socks posted on his page. Is there a way to figure out his IP and block that? Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Not even administrators can find out a user's IP address: only checkusers can do that, and they will do it only under very specific circumstances, of which this is not an example. However, for a short time the IPs recently used by a blocked user are automatically blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Updated message from zozimus43

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Zozimus43's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied at User talk:Zozimus43. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hard4me

The socking issue has been resolved. I've followed up on Hard4me's talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Mechanical System

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at [[User talk:Prof McCarthy (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)|User talk:Prof McCarthy (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Answered at User talk:Prof McCarthy. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at [[User talk:Prof McCarthy (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)|User talk:Prof McCarthy (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Page Protection Request

I made a request for page protection of the page Nair. It has not been dealt with at all, (presumably because it might be controversial?) and I was wondering if you might like to take a look. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have sent this message just as I have to go offline. I will try to find time to look at it tomorrow, if it hasn't already been dealt with by then. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now had a quick look at the history of the article. It looks quite complicated. Rather than spend a lot of time checking to see exactly what has been going on, I am going to suggest that you might like to contact one of the administrators who has taken action before. They will already have some idea what has been going on, so they will be able to get up to date on the current situation more easily than I could. The last admin to protect this article was Boing! said Zebedee, and the previous one was CirtBoth of them are, in my opinion, good administrators, and should be able to deal with the issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a few editors on that article who are trying to turn it from the mess it was into a decent article, and they're doing a pretty good job of it - but they are encountering a lot of abuse from caste warriors. I'm trying to help as much as I can, but ideally without protecting the page as that would defeat the attempts to improve it. I've warned a few of the warriors and have blocked one for abuse already - and I think that strategy is generally working ok -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks...

Thank you so much for lifting my ban. It was very concerning to me, and I appreciate your fast adjudication. I also have thanked Orange Mike for his support. My name change was simple and already is in effect. Again, thanks! Davidneflorida (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

About Miaris

Good Morning Mr Watson. All of my articles are Greek and they can't improve my english version.Although you can contact with the Greek administrator to ju- stify the atricle is true or not.

Thank you so much

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.226.242 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 June 2011

Good Morning Mr Watson. All of my articles are Greek and they can't improve my english version.Although you can contact with the Greek administrator to ju- stify the atricle is true or not.

Thank you so much

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

I have no reason to doubt that the information in the article is true. What is questioned is whether the subject of the article is notable enough to justify having an encyclopaedia article about him. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

That's wright! Thank You Mr. Watson! I ll be back soon! ND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanel (talk • contribs) 10:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 12:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- DQ (t) (e) 12:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, you win

After your warning of edit-warring, this[3] was posted on the Devsirme talk page, notice the anon IP address which later Kenzo400 or Kenzo4000 changed to his name. Statements like this, "I know you like to have the last word, but it's time to grow up.", are unacceptable, along with the other lies and personal attacks by Kenzo400 and COMPANY. But congratulations, I WILL NOT BE editing or discussing on that article again. So you win. Just another example how sockpuppetry,edit-warring and personal attacks win out over university sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, both of the two participants in the dispute have now accused me of taking the side of the other one. It's difficult to understand why I "win" because the editor that I blocked has (in your view) triumphed over the one that I have only given a warning. It's also difficult to understand how you can view it as a triumph, since the result of the edit you have linked to was that I blocked Kenzo400's account for a month. It will be a pity if you give up working on the article because of this. Perhaps you may like to reconsider your decision. Maybe instead, once Kenzo400's block has expired, the two of you could work towards agreeing on some compromise wording: perhaps something on the lines of "such and such a view is put forward by so and so, but on the other hand..." or something. That would be so much better than one editor feeling the other has "won". Or you could look at WP:Dispute resolution and see whether any of its suggestions could help. Wikipedia:Third opinion might be worth a look, too. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Compromise"? Kenzo400/Kenzo4000/anon IP removes the referenced information only because he/she does not like it, plain and simple. He/she has not addressed any of the references in that paragraph, simply labeling them anti-Islamic. So after all the sockpuppetry, edit-warring and personal attacks, I am done with Kenzo400/Kenzo4000/numerous anon IPs. Enjoy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo

Hi JamesBWatson. I noticed that you recently blocked a troll account that had been vandalizing the Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo page, among others. As the editor who started the article, there have been some recent developments in the news regarding Farmajo's proposed resignation that I would like to update the page with if possible (c.f. [4]); thought I'd first contact you about it to make sure that this is feasible. Please advise. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason at all why you shouldn't go ahead with editing the article. You seem to have a pretty good source there, and a quick glance at your editing history gives me no reason to think you can't do it properly. I don't know a lot about this subject: I only came in because of a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and when I investigated I found that the editor had made various unacceptable edits, including threats of murder, so I blocked the account. Beyond that I have no particular interest in the article, and I have no reason not to leave you to do as you think fit. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. And your zero tolerance for vandalism is appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Freshacconci's talk page.
Message added 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

freshacconci talktalk 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Ryan Vesey's talk page.
Message added 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I also replied at Too much user information. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you believe I am too bold? I noticed that I have made many mainspace edits, and rarely discuss them on talk pages. I do, however, discuss some edits on user talk pages. I have also created talk page posts for major changes such as Talk:Catholic Church#English. I was just wondering what your thoughts were. I was also considering putting myself up for editor review. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Shawn Storm

You previously one of the sock accounts related to this, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawn Storm. -- Cirt (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

wrongfully deleted

My page Seth (pianist) has been wrongfuly deleted and i wish for it to be put back up. you said that there was no reason why i should be noted but i am a performer with an album coming out i have already sold over 4000 albums the digital download is released in summer as physical copies stopped being produces. and i also said that no references were currently avaliable and it says in your terms that as long as you will put them in at a later date that it is ok. my page did not brake any of your rules and i want my page back. i know that wikipedia keeps copies of all its pages in cached form so i want my page back as i havent broke your rules you have wrongfully deleted my page. it wasnt advertising, or spam or hoax you have wrongfully deleted my page and i want it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZSETHZz (talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A student who has performed in various churches and town halls, as many music students do. Someone who was going to appear in a documentary but now isn't going to. Someone who is going to release a record. I don't see a plausible claim of significance there at all. If it were undeleted it would be immediately nominated for a deletion discussion, and the fact that searches have failed to find any significant coverage in third party sources would be pretty likely to mean that it was deleted again. You say that no references are currently available. Contrary to what you seem to think, that is sufficient reason for an article to be deleted. You will be much better off realising that Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself or to publish your CV, and instead put your efforts into using a social network site or a personal web host. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am a recording artist and i have released the record it is now going to digital download as the physical copies stopped being made. and wikipedia stated that REFERENCES MUST BE INCLUDED EVEN IF THAT IS AT A LATER DATE BUT IT MUST BE STATED THAT THEY WILL BE ADDED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. and i am not promoting myself and also there used to be a page on here about lim hyung joo a world famous singer but that was removed because he isnt notable WTF!!!! hes world famous. my page did not brake any of your rules and i can provide some references but i didnt do so as they are out dated and would be even worst if i added them. if you can tell me one thing my page did that it was not suppose to i will say ok but i did not do anything to break your rules. i can provide evidence of the documentary claim that i was asked to appear through several emails. and i am not currently in the third party information because: APR is now doing my music where as before it was EMI so i am not currently in apr's pages as of this moment. i also had not finished the page i have yet to add lots of information as i wanted something to work with and was going to add to it in about 2 hours but it has already been deleted. my page did not brake your rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZSETHZz (talk • contribs) 02:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

First, do you understand conflict of interest? If you are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, someone will write one about you. Writing an article about yourself leads to bias and a non-neutral point of view. Another major policy of Wikipedia is that the encyclopedia must be based on verifiability, not truth. These are two of the three core policies of Wikipedia. If an outside observer were to write an article about you, with references, which established notability, it could be included; however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and cannot write about future events. I do not believe, from the information I read here, that an article about you would meet the notability requirements of a biography of a living person at the present moment. Here are the notability requirements of a recording artist or band. Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ok thats understandable. is there anyway u can send me my page as txt so when the upto date information is avaliable i can remake the page with all the valid information and 3rd party information? and i will also include all the other information that i did not have time to include and also wikipedia says you can write about yourself they just advise against it and if that is so i shall get someone else to do it instead without my input.