Contents

User talk:JBW: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:41, 3 November 2010

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.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JBW.

Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. Thanks.

thanks for the reverts -- whole sockpuppet investigation happened pretty damn quickly too ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like hes back: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the Blue Stone Bar and Grill page I wrote? I would like to know what was exactly wrong with it. Please be specific. Thank you!

(Ithacarc (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The page was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Peridon as unambiguous promotion. Looking at it, I found that it did indeed read like an attempt to promote the restaurant. It is worth mentioning, though, that even if it were rewritten in less promotional terms, it might well be deleted sooner or later, as it gave little indication that its subject satisfied Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Since it was a user page rather than an article you would have been given time to work on it and prepare it for release as an article, but this would be only a temporary measure: user-space pages are not for long-term retention of material not suitable as articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James,

You may remember deleting a page under the title International Marketing Reports (IMR) last week. I edited the page to make it as neutral as possible and can only think of a lack of references as justification for deleting the page. Can I ask why a page like the following is permitted to stay while the one I created is not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octagon_Worldwide.

Sport sponsorships are a grey area in terms of scientific measurement and evaluation - perhaps if our page addressed this point in more depth and how IMR tackles this global issue then that would be seen as more appropriate? If its not too much trouble, please respond to gary@imrpublications.com.

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GR60 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. You are welcome to propose Octagon Worldwide for deletion if you think it does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I see that the article claims it is "the world’s largest sports and entertainment sponsorship consulting practice", which is certainly a claim of significance, but I do not know how valid a claim it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What kind of independent resources are you looking for to speak of To-Shin Do? It is a martial art. I know I made an edit to it previously but I think i changed it back if I recall and just added the http://www.skhquest.com/ URL to the page. I'm just unsure as to what you are looking for as an outside citation. There are tons of Martial Arts authorities out there, but who amongst them would vouch for anything but what they are teaching themselves? I'd like to Rebuild a To-Shin Do page, but I'm not going to bother if I know you will delete it because it's not talked about in the UFC or any of the other mainstream fighting circles.

Keao22 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Keao22[reply]

1. The article was proposed for deletion by User:Astudent0, who said that it was unreferenced.
2. I can confirm that it was unreferenced at the time of the proposal, and was still unreferenced a week later, after time had been allowed for references to be found, or the proposal challenged. That is why it was deleted.
3. Look at the guidelines on notability and reliable sources to see what is required.
4. If there are no references to it other than those from the people who run it then the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and there can be no article on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James it strikes me as curious that you would delete the page after waiting only a week for people to add references. If you put it back we will gladly add the references you seek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russnem (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is how deletion proposals are dealt with on English Wikipedia. You are free to suggest a change in the procedure if you like. It would be a very dramatic change in a well-established procedure, but you could raise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the martial art of To-Shin Do, Stephen K. Hayes, would like to restore the Wikipedia page for his martial art and I work for him in a technical capacity.

Thousands of people practice To-Shin Do and it means a great deal to us. Could you please either restore the page or elaborate more on why you deleted it?

Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russnem (talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it sounds like you're trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion and that's not what it's here for. HalfShadow 04:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't disagree with you more. We have many other avenues for promotion. We want a page on Wikipedia because To-Shin Do is a real martial art. But thanks for your comment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russnem (talk • contribs) 05:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the fact that you're involved with the creator of this so-called 'martial art' (I note that the site this refers to offers "Authentic ninja training". Please. Next you'll be offering "real ninja swords" to the next 20 people who sign up.) means you automatically shouldn't be editing the page. Nor should he. HalfShadow 05:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your real name is, I understand your hostility even though I don't agree with it. You clearly already have your opinion and adhere to it quite strongly, and we understand that. Please have the courtesy to allow others to form their own opinion by finding To-Shin Do on Wikipedia for themselves, and checking the references that we'll make sure are present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.69.123 (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that HalfShadow was being hostile. They were just trying to clarify the position in relation to the way Wikipedia works. "Allow others to form their own opinion by finding To-Shin Do on Wikipedia for themselves" appears to be written in the belief that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information, but it is not. There are plenty of social networking sites, open forums, etc, which allow posting of almost anything, but Wikipedia is different, and requires that topics satisfy certain standards for inclusion. "We want a page on Wikipedia because To-Shin Do is a real martial art" is not a reason for having an article on the topic. My wife's pet cat is a real animal, but does not warrant an article. You may like to have a look at Wikipedia:But it's true!orWikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Likewise "it means a great deal to us" is not a reason for an article. Lots of things mean a lot to me, but I know they don't have the kind of notability that Wikipedia requires a topic to have to justify inclusion. The subjective view of a group of people (even a large group of people) not backed up by independent coverage does not constitute satisfying Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You say that you will be able to provide suitable references. That is fine: in that case show us those references, and if they do indeed satisfy the relevant Wikipedia guidelines then there will be no problem at all with having an article on the subject. You ask me to "elaborate more on why [I] deleted it". What exactly do you want clarified? I have given the reason, together with links to the relevant guidelines. If there are specific details of those guidelines you don't understand, or specific questions about how they applied in this particular case, then I will happily try to help. However, I really don't at present know what is unclear to you or what needs elaboration. Finally, it is clear from what you say that you have a conflict of interest, and probably should not be editing on this subject at all, as HalfShadow has already suggested. If the subject really is notable by Wikipedia standards then almost certainly someone who is not involved and can take an objective view will sooner or later write about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There. He gets it. ("Authentic ninja training". I think that's going to make me laugh all weekend. "Be a ninja in eight easy steps!" Oh shit, now I've started giggling...) HalfShadow 17:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping vanity, promotion, and fringe elements out of Wikipedia is an important, and thankless task. In cases like this, we need to determine the specifics as to why the To-Shin Do page was deleted and either a) remedy them or b) leave the page deleted. From a precedent standpoint, there are other martial arts that have pages and seem to meet the "notable" threshold. For example, Jeet Kune Do was a style developed by Bruce Lee. I am not sure it has the worldwide base that To-Shin Do does. I'm not sure it even has licensed schools and other institutionalized structures, yet it meets or exceeds the threshold for "notable," and has its own Wikipedia page.

Simply put, the threshold for a notable martial art needs to be a bright line so we can evaluate whether something meets or exceeds that level. Authors who can meet this standard can provide information, or they can't. This should be purely an intellectual discussion. I fail to see how the process is improved by any of HalfShadow's trolling. Simply answer the questions in a direct, professional manner. At that point, the page will be corrected or stay deleted. Thank you Greenshinobi (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Greenshinobi.[reply]

Just out of curiosity, would you consider throwing your hat in the ring for the ArbCom election? I think you would be a tremendous asset to the committee. Cindamuse (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't even crossed my mind. Thanks very much for the show of faith, but I think not just now. Feel free to ask again next time round, and I may consider it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking action against this hoaxer; I had asked for a block on a previous AfD but was rebuffed. Can you also block an associated IP, 99.88.40.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who seems to be the sneaker IP ClapBoy uses to get more subtle changes for a month? I reverted their changes already. Nate • (chatter) 11:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a COI-template at user talk:DinDraithou, was this done by accident? If it was deliberate, I'd like to know what in DD's edits/ article creations point towards a COI. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably as good an example as any. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous thing to add to my talk page, when everyone already knows the story about those arms, that I am happy to support Xander because he kindly drew them when I asked, and that, since I am anonymous, I sometimes enjoy sounding a certain "entitled" way. Who cares? Because I don't go around and mess up Wikipedia, so stay out of my space with your ridiculous templates, James. DinDraithou (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the message in good faith, because I had seen some edits that made it look as though you might have a conflict of interest, and might not realise the position on that in Wikipedia, so I thought it would help to clarify things for you. I see that you didn't like my attempt to help you. For that I am sorry. You are mistaken in thinking that "everyone already knows the story about those arms": I don't for example. I didn't suggest that you "go around and mess up Wikipedia", and I am not at all sure how that is relevant to a warning about possible conflict of interest. I don't know what you mean by "stay out of my space": if it means that I should not post messages on your user talk page then the answer is that I will do so if and only if there seems to be a good reason to do so. If you can clarify what you meant then please feel welcome to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you obviously did not have a good reason to do so, had not investigated, but went ahead with that nice template anyway. I didn't like it, and since I'm not doing anything wrong you shouldn't be on my talk page. I have nothing to do with the war Xander is in and only offered him local support because he kindly drew those arms as I requested. It was local support only, limited to five articles sharing a common image, and I don't care about all the rest of it. Discussion over. (I'm unwatching it.) DinDraithou (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that my posting the conflict of interest message was related to an issue with another editor and some pictures of coats of arms. It had nothing to do with that. It was based purely on your statement that you had a connection with a family and that that gave you a right to decide what information about the family should be included in Wikipedia. I also find your idea that nobody should post messages to your talk page unless you have done wrong an odd one. Finally, if by "Discussion over" you mean that you will ignore any response I make to what you have written, then that is up to you, but it does not seem to be a constructive approach. One word of advice: try not to see everything in confrontational terms. As I have already explained, I was making a good faith attempt to help you, and I have not accused you of any wrongdoing. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am only their de facto "representative" because I'm a distant cousin and the only person on Wikipedia who knows anything about them. Families don't have Wikipedia "representatives" so it was not meant in that sense, which I thought would be obvious. The passage referred to one other editor and then an admin who had convinced themselves the image needed to be in three O'Donovan biographies simply because Xander had added them. I never thought it belonged anywhere but in the main article. But when I removed them there was a little edit war and FisherQueen even threatened to block me for removing the image from the articles in which it should not have been in the first place. Really they were fighting Xander and my attempt to be nice got me attacked by his enemies. Again, discussion over. DinDraithou (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that Xanderlip has "enemies" here says a lot about both Xander and the above editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if my "intervention" when I first saw your message helped make this a larger storm in a teacup than it should have been, instead of the other way around. I certainly accept that your edit was done in good faith, although a message instead of a template might have had a better chance of getting the effect you intended. {{Don't template the regulars}} comes to mind... ;) Best regards, and happy editing, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally blocking that vandal ClapBoy380, he was really becoming a nuiseance. Have a cookie!

Rusted AutoParts has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:49 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was the page deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FolkKänndom (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was what page deleted? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read comment at Category talk:Parade High School All-Americans (girls' basketball). The spelling issue needs to be resolved. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the comment, but it did not in any way negate the fact that it was a talk page of a non-existent page, which was the reason for deletion. Why did you think I didn't read it? If you wish to put a comment on the talk page of an existing page suggesting moving it then that is fine, but putting a comment on a talk page for a page which does not even exist is very unlikely to serve any useful purpose, as nobody is likely to find it (except such situations as an admin coming to the page because it is tagged for speedy deletion, of course.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James, why would you just delete the talk page, rather than correcting the spelling of the actual category and moving it? Otherwise, we are simply ignoring the real problem; that's why I thought you did not read it. May we solve the real problem, by moving all of these Parade High School All-American subcategories to their proper spellings? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I read the comment, but thought it was a comment left from before an earlier moving of the category page, so I deleted it. The comment looked to me as though it had been written on the talk page of the category without the apostrophe, asking for it to be moved to the title with one. I assumed therefore that the category had been moved, and had subsequently been moved again or deleted, the talk page being left behind. Could I have worked out the true situation if I had searched more extensively? Probably yes. However, there are always far more admin tasks waiting to be done than I can do, and I spend a lot of time doing background checking on ones which seem complicated, but when I find something which looks perfectly straightforward it seems a better use of my time to just deal with it and move on to another task. If I had found the message on the talk page of the apostrophe-free version of the page I certainly would have moved it, as you were, of course, perfectly right. Unfortunately putting the request on the moved talk page, rather than a new talk page for the old page, misled me. Sorry about the mistake, but perhaps you can forgive me now I have explained how it happened. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Oh, boy. When do the clowns start climbing out of the little car? Sorry, James, I'm not angry, but I am a slightly frustrated. I had asked another admin to fix this, and he was working on the problem. Someone put a CSD tag on these pages, and they popped up on my watchlist. No fewer than three different admins attempted to delete them while I was literally adding the "hang on" tags, with the usual "edit conflict" difficulties. One other admin, Orange Mike, may be joining us on your talk page shortly to discuss the solution. Thanks for trying to help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I think we're all working toward the same goal (most days, anyway). Admin Orange Mike seems to think there is no way to "move" a category page, thereby creating a redirect, and thus requiring the creation of a new category page at the correct spelling, and the manual editing of each of the existing links at the bottom of each article page. What's your take? BTW, no need to respond or place talk-backs on my page; I'm watching yours. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little experience with working on categories, so I don't know. It is certainly true that there is no "move" link when I look at a category page, so Orange Mike is probably right. He is very knowledgeable, and has been an admin far longer than I have. Manually changing all the links could be an enormous task for some categories, though this category, with only 17 members, shouldn't be too bad. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually one of five separate subcategories (football, boys' basketball, girls' basketball, boys' soccer and girls' soccer). I created the original parent category for football, and another hard-working editor created the subcategories and added 200+ articles to the new subcats. Can't fault the other editor for his work ethic (just his spelling). Anyway, like the darned fool I am, I volunteered to deal with getting the subcats fixed. So, here I am. Let's see what Mike has to say on further elaboration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know I am a great believer in apostrophes where appropriate, and it really grates on me to see their absence from such expressions as "The Kings Arms", yet even I wonder if in this case the best thing would have been to have left things as they were. 200+ articles to manually change is a hell of a lot. I have some idea what it is like, because a while ago I individually semiprotected almost all of the Tom and Jerry cartoon articles because of persistent vandalism. I don't remember how many there were, probably fewer than 200, but I can tell you I was pretty sick of the task by the time I reached the end. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, English language spelling and grammar are a curse upon a great civilization, and even more so to those of us who thanklessly try to follow those rules whenever possible and are spat upon by our fellows for it. I gather from the use of the abbreviation "Dr" without the period that you are English or other Commonwealth nationality. If so, we can argue about whether the punctuation should be placed inside or outside the quotation marks. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JBW, with some help from others, I have figured out the process to resolve this cock-up. While I have manually depopulated the less populous of the incorrectly spelled subcategories and requested their speedy deletion, the incorrectly spelled "boys basketball" subcategory includes over 500 articles. I have requested this category's speedy renaming through the CfD page, and once the renaming is effectuated with the correct spelling, there is an available bot to change the category on the individual article pages. I thank you for your assistance in this matter. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this, the page was created in June 2010, well after the creator, User:ChildofMidnight operating under a sockpuppet account, was banned. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That completely changes everything. I had no idea it was ChildofMidnight. I will delete forthwith. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you have no idea that it was ChildofMidnight, when User:Freakshownerd clearly says that it it was? Admins are expected to do better than this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very easy. I spent some time checking the user's talk page, talk page history, edit history, block log, etc, and in the course of doing so managed to overlook their user page. If by "admins are expected to do better than this" you mean expected to usually do better, then you are of course right, and I hope I do so. If, however, you mean that nobody should be an admin if they are capable of sometimes making a slip, then I wonder who you think would be an admin. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boo! Anna Lincoln 15:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a thread for this so I'm deleting the question Greenshinobi (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Greenshinobi[reply]

Can you help me delete the redirect page Dauphine of France? I need to move Dauphine and First Princess of France to it. Thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted an article on EX1 Cosmetics. If you check the refernces you will see the massive contributions this girl made to the cosmetics industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super sara 2007 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need to check the references in order to see that the article was unambiguous advertising. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would an IP like 195.194.185.53 be appropriate for Admin intervention against vandalism? (Recent vandalism to Lee Evans (comedian))? 173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline. Certainly much more appropriate than the couple of reports I mentioned to you. There is effectively only one recent edit (3 edits, but in immediate succession one after another) and no editing after the last warning. Normally I would say that warnings from 10 days and more ago are not very relevant, as it is entirely likely that they were to different users. However, in this case all the edits are within a fairly short period, which encourages me to think it is likely to be the same user. However, the banner on the talk page indicating it is a college IP goes against that. On balance I think the answer is "no": warn the user and see if the problem continues rather than reporting at this stage. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

As you have recently edited one of the two articles mentioned, I am notifying you of the proposed merger. Please comment at Talk:Magical negro#Proposing a merger. Thank you, Bigger digger (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a problem with this IP that keeps submitting speculation info to Spike and Tyke (characters). Could you please send him a warning to stop adding unverifiable info on that page? If he continues to do so, block him from editing. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the user, but you could have done that yourself. Let me know if it continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unblock. My apologies for any difficulties I may have caused. I don't react well when embattled, though that reaction is my sole responsibility. - BilCat (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James, I just tried to "revoew a P-C change here, and it was not autoconfirmed. I'm thinking this might be something to do with new P-C updates, but can you double check to see if my permissions are correct? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what went wrong. You certainly have the right user rights, including reviewer. My first attempt to accept your edit failed too, and I should certainly be able to do it, as an admin. However, I tried a second time and it worked, so maybe it was just a temporary problem with the software. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I just wanted to rule out the possibilty it had something to do with a residual effect from my block. - BilCat (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just deleted my bands page saying it was irrelevant... How so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.211.6 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about irrelevancy. However, Wikipedia:CSD#A7 will tell you about the speedy deletion criterion that was used, WP:GNG and WP:BAND will tell you about the relevant notability criteria, and User talk:Melaen is the user talk page of the user who nominated the article for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you deleted my page for my friends band. i can understand why seeing as there wasnt much content but thats cuz i was waiting for matt cooper of the band to edit alot more information onto the page, which he then did for 2 hours, then you deleted it all. we're both pretty mad at you. i was wondering if you could please reopen the page so that we may recover the text or if you could somehow send me all of the text that was on the page, it would be very nice of you.

thanks John —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAGibbs (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because your band exists doesn't mean it has a place here. Why is your band significant? What has it done to make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? HalfShadow 19:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can email the text of the article to you if you like. If you don't want to publicly announce your email address you can enable email on your Wikipedia preferences page. That way I can send you an email via Wikipedia without knowing your email address. Of course there's nothing to stop you just posting your email address here if you want to, but I wouldn't encourage you to do that. However, I should warn you that before considering re-creating the article you should have a look at Wikipedia:Yet another MySpace band. A rather more hostile version is at Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. I don't personally go along 100% with the views expressed in the second of those, but it does act as a caution against thinking that Wikipedia is the place to get publicity for a little-known band. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion or publicity. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have enabled my email and can you please send me the text it would be nice to have. thank you john —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAGibbs (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied via email. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is User:Macy emerald blocked? She's my sister and came complaining to me that Wikipedia wouldn't let her edit anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.247.252 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware the only way you can can know that I was the one who did the blocking is that you have seen either the block log entry or the block notice on her user talk page. In either case you know why she was blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but would be opposed to an unblock, due to violation of WP:Role account, which does not magically get fixed with username change. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, if you have a moment could you chime in here. It looks as if it needs a mathematician and might not even be a case for us at EAR. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James,

I am trying to create a page with the title "Kairos Palestine" which is a project that I am currently responsible for. The page has been deleted a couple of times to copyright issues. The text I added on the Wikipedia page is the same text I used on the website and have no intention to changing it. Would it be possible to keep the text as it is on the Wikipedia page even though it has been copied from the main website? Thanks

Best, Roula Handal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roulahandal (talk • contribs) 09:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hesitate to revert a fellow admin, but I have declined your db-spam on this because, despite the author's obvious COI and user-name problems, it seems to me a neutrally-written and adequately-referenced article. In fact, though I shall read it again and check more of the refs first, I am inclined to move it into the main space. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was not sure myself, which is why I tagged it, rather than simply deleting. I wanted a second opinion, which you have now given me, and I am happy to accept it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It isn't in any of the instructions, and I hadn't understood it before I became an admin, but I soon realised that there are two classes of speedy candidates: those like blatant attacks which are so certainly deletable that one pair of eyes is enough, and the much larger number which should have two pairs so that an admin, coming upon one untagged, should tag it and leave for another to check. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it live. Further to that, is it OK with you if I unblock the author to change his username? Looking at the history, he seems to have gone about things exactly as we would wish a COI contributor to do, making a draft in userspace, asking at WP:FEED for comment, and not contesting the deletions someone there suggested. JohnCD (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave the decision to you. I certainly won't wheel war over it. However, I would be inclined to first seek an assurance that the account is to be used only by one person. I am very far from happy with the repeated use of the word "we" in the unblock request, strongly suggesting a violation of WP:ROLE. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, which I have emphasised in my unblock message. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your reason for speedy deletion

No you haven't, as I have explained on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my position on my page. Sorry for any confusion.

[User:sbokov|sbokov]] (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, responded

Sbokov (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You proposed deletion of a biography I wrote for Anne Seisen Saunders. I added references within a week's time, before November 2nd. Please let me know why it was still deleted after I added the necessary references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhisattvajr (talk • contribs) 17:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I restored this article due to a request on WP:REFUND. It had at least one reference which covered the subject prior to deletion. No comment on whether or not it is likely to survive AfD. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't propose deletion, but I did delete it. Why, I am not sure: probably it was just a mistake. Two of the three sources do not appear to mention Saunders, and I am not sure that the other is a reliable source, but it is enough to prevent deletion on PRODBLP grounds. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that edit warring with regard to the content of these articles on your part is irresponsible - several other articles of the same type by the same user with the same basic problems were deleted at AfD by the user (several more than once, as the user tried a few times to sneakily recreate the articles, and got blocked for it ultimately). There were also noticeboard discussions supporting the conclusion the AfDs reached, and AN/Is involving neutral, non-Australian admins agreeing that James's behaviour was disruptive. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I think Caesia's actions in redirecting were entirely reasonable given that existing gauging of consensus. If it is so much of a problem I will nominate the five articles for deletion in their own right, but I'm disappointed that you think it's acceptable or even appropriate to re-add hysterical, unsupportable OR to the encyclopaedia without any sense of responsibility.

What will you do to change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandtrenda (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the remotest idea what you are talking about. If you actually do have some articles in mind then please say what articles. On the face of it this looks like trolling. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure you do, without any doubt. There are a lot of other admins, who shall not be named, who are keeping an eye on the sitation therefore I suggest you act accordingly and be prepared to justify your actions next time in a professional manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandtrenda (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source for what i was saying, and it's the truth, so why are you reverting me? It factual, and it has sources. Your all a bunch of jerks! Catlover324 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]