This is an archive of past discussions. 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 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Hi. I don't even know what is a proxy. I think I'm a good user, my edits are productive, and I want to keep reverting vandalisms like this. I tried yesterday and couldn't do anything because my account was autoblocked, so this edit stayed for more than one day. That's the reason. I will check my computer, but I don't believe it's infected. Lordelliott ( talk) 23:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have already submitted a complain.... about the user Historyfeelings please read my complain which explain the editing war.

I would like to report the user Historyfeelings... who is engaging in a continuing vandalism on several Wikipedia articles. I had several talks with him, after I tried to undo his vandalism.

I advised him with the nature of his editing and that it simple violates the simple rules in wikipedia policy. I have warned him more than five times, but he faced me with counter claims and denial while I reminded him/her with the log facility in Wikipedia, where it has the capablity of track the changes and verify his/her claims.

The user is vandalising three different articles by replacing every word “Souf” with the word “Sakib” without any attention to the context of his vandalism or the factual aspect of the information he is changing. What drawn my attention to what he was doing that one of the Jordanian newspapers “Addustour” in their 05/05/2011. They just engaged in plagiarism after copying the Wikipedia article “in Arabic and publishing it as an article of their own. By doing this they just added publicity to the vandalised information the user and re-used the information without even mentioning that the information was originally vandalised by the user Historyfeelings.

I just tracked his Vandalism.....

- on article "Jerash" the user Historyfeelings vandalism started on 04:30, 24 February 2012‎. In this change he/she added Sakib and then started simply replacing "Souf" with "Sakib" just for the intention of vandalism.

- on article "Jordan" the user Historyfeelings vandalism started on 00:48, 10 April 2012‎. In this change he/she just replaced the photo for the olive farms in "Souf" with a photo for the mountains of Sakib, which is in fact for the purpose of vandalism as the picture was listed in irrelevant section as the mountain has no farming. This was just for the intention of vandalism.

- on the article جرش (Arabic) the user Historyfeelings started his vandalism on 04:13، 2 يناير 2012 (January) by by adding "Sakib" to every "Souf" word in the article. Later on the 04:24، 24 فبراير 2012‏ (February) after the user engaged in several editing war with several other users, he simply started replacing "Souf" with "Sakib" in every word in the article.

The user Historyfeelings is persisting on his vandalism and he is just replacing a name of a place "Souf" with another "Sakib" without any awareness of the context or factual nature of the information. In Jordan article, in the section about agriculture in Jordan. He is just replacing the photo of olive farms in "Souf" with an irrelevant photo of a mountain in "Sakib".

Thank you for your attention Wakwakwiki ( talk) 15:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC).

• I noticed the above at WT:Long-term abuse where Wakwakwiki ( talk · contribs) added a report about Historyfeelings ( talk · contribs), see WP:Long-term abuse/Historyfeelings. The search function at WP:ANI finds no mention of either of these users (and each user has an empty block log), so the LTA report should be deleted, and I'm hoping you will do that. I will add a note at User talk:Wakwakwiki. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The user Historyfeelings has also been granted the status of Autopatrolled unlawfully as most of his article are vandalism and they are usually rejected by Wikipedia as they talk about tribes and families (In the Arab world) which is banned by wikipedia regulations.

He even created a number of articles which simply repeat it self to get the status of Autopatrolled user. I checked the requirements and it states that it should be 50 new articles with a considerable authenticity and credibility, which is simple not the case with all his articles

   قبيلة_عياصره (redirect)                This Article about Ayasreh Tribe which is banned by the regulations of  Wikipedia
   عشيرة_عياصره (redirect)                The Same Tribe but he call it clan in Arabic 
   عشيرة_العياصره (redirect)              The Same Tribe but he call it clan in Arabic (he is using different spelling) 
   قبيلة_العياصره (redirect)              Same Tribe
   العياصره (redirect)                    Same Tribe
   عياصره (redirect)                      Same Tribe
   عشيرة_عياصرة (redirect)                Same Tribe
   قرية_الكتة (redirect)                  (Nehleh is a neighboring village and he call it city) 
   بلدة_الكتة (redirect)
   مدينة_نحلة (redirect)                  (Nehleh is a neighboring village and he call it city) 
   بلدة_نحلة (redirect)                   (Nehleh is a neighboring village and he call this time town) 
   ساكب_(قرية) (redirect)                 same village
   ساكب_(بلدة) (redirect)                 same village
   ساكب_(مدينة) (redirect)                same village
   بلدة_ريمون (redirect)                  (Reemoon is a neighboring village and he call this time town) 
   مدينة_ريمون (redirect)                 (Reemoon again and he call this time city) 
   قرية_ريمون (redirect)                  (Reemoon again and he call this time village) 
   قرية_ساكب (redirect)                    same village
   قرية_نحلة (redirect)                   (Nehleh again and he call it this time village) 
   مدينة_ساكب (redirect)                   same village
   بلدة_ساكب (redirect)                    same village

   قبيلة_العياصرة (redirect)              Same Tribe
   العياصرة (redirect)                    Same Tribe
   عشيرة_العياصرة (redirect)              Same Tribe 

Wakwakwiki ( talk) 15:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see my comment in the previous section. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

-- Shirt58 ( talk) 13:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the email. A quick Google search provided plenty of sources. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Too much Precautionary principle and WP:BLP, not enough WP:COMMONSENSE. Fault is entirely my own.-- Shirt58 ( talk) 13:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there JAMES, VASCO here,

this "user" (please see "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/177.0.204.119) has returned after his three-month block expired, and has resumed his deeds, removing stuff from boxes without one word in summary (i.e. picture captions, as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jonathan_Viera&diff=491037980&oldid=491037708). Speaking of blocks, he has been blocked more than one time.

The master account is already blocked indef, and i know you can't do the same to anon IPs. So what is available is this case(s)? Attentively, happy week - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 14:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) The problem has been going on for a long time, with numerous blocks that have not stopped the problem. (2) It is clear that the IP address is being used to evade a block on an account. (3) It is clear that the IP address has been used by one user for a long time.

This is the sort of situation where, although we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, it is justified to block one for a long period of time, so I have blocked for three years. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks James. It should be fair to say that, even though the person has used this IP 99,999999999% of the time, i have seen other (2 or 3) addresses. Hopefully they are "dead" as we speak and this is (was) the only option, other than creating another sock. Cheers! -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 14:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sure thing! In this message to the main account (please see here, in both English and our mothertongue Portuguese, my last attempt to resolve things in wiki-civility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruno_corinthiano#Please_-_Por_favor), you will see several addresses which have to be BRUNO CORINTHIANO (all operating from Brazil, all removing stuff from infoboxes without one word in summary, all NEVER engaging in any form of interaction whatsoever).

Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 20:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello can you please check these accounts: user:wakwakwiki, user:banimustafa, user:soufray, user:StrictWikiEditor, user:Jerashray all these 5 accounts refer to the same person.-- 94.249.93.242 ( talk) 00:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For block evasion and admin shopping while blocked, I have extended the block on your registered account to 1 week. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 00:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Seen, thanks. JamesBWatson ( talk) 08:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

an article which I edited contains the following:

the wikipedia article describes the main subjects/ themes of an episode from a popular tv show. the article also mentions a 'critic', who did not get the main theme and subject of the episode. the 'critic' himself admitted to not getting the references in his review of the next episode. I contributed this information to the article, as it puts the 7.5/10 review in context. Another (random) critic, who did get the reference, awarded the episode 10/10 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2128146/reviews

so what do you want me to do? add more reviews to the article? delete the review who did not understand the episode?

tell me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beef Stallmer ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My own view is that the whole section is of dubious value, and should probably be removed. There are several reasons for this, including the fact that it gives undue weight to one person's assessment. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User Deltasim added a link to Kid Icarus that I feel does not meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for a reliable source. I fear that we may be approaching an editing war and suggest that we open the reliability of the link to discussion on the talk page so we can reach a consensus before adding it.

Fattestalbert ( talk) 14:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, there appears to be a sockpuppet who expresses a great interest to sabotage the VGMaps article by nominating it for deletion and removal of a valid point within the Kid Icarus article regarding a fan remake. I suspect that users Fattestalbert and PeterAmbrosia and possibly UnbornClarity are the same user originated from Flip Industries, who have a vendetta against the VGMaps. The user is obviously attempting to use Wiki Principles to his/her advantage and if you'll check their contributions list only expressed interests in editing the two articles mentioned above. Check out http://vgmaps.com/Reviews/Editorial-DidFlipIndustriesReallyCreateSuperKidIcarus.htm and http://www.vgmaps.com/forums/index.php?topic=1725.0 if you want find out what this vendetta is all about and the likeliness of the behaviour patterns of that user. Thanks for any support you can offer.

Deltasim ( talk) 14:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at the editing history of the accounts, including deleted edits, I think that you are right about the motivation of the editor(s) in question. Whether they are the same person I don't know. On the whole I think meatpuppets are more likely than sockpuppets. However, even if they are the same person, I'm not sure that there is abuse of multiple accounts: for example, they didn't both participate in the same AfD discussion. I don't see any action that can actually be taken at this stage. I don't see enough evidence yet for a sockpuppet investigation having any chance of going anywhere (though you are, of course, free to try to prove me wrong). On the whole my feeling is that at present it's just a matter of watching to see whether anything further develops. JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional: User ArtimusSlayer is also a likely connection with the other three. I'll continue investigating. Deltasim ( talk) 16:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

ArtimusSlayer has sent unofficial block tag to my personal page and is placing Anti-VGMaps propaganda in the article. May I request page protection for the VGMaps article and some page protection on my personal userpage to stop personal attacks. Deltasim ( talk) 13:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, in the future perhaps contact me first. An MFd was not at all required. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me. I spent 2 days in polite discussions with a bunch of people on the talk page who clearly have no idea about the diet and are willing to attack anything that is not a criticism of the diet. They even attacked me when I quoted one of their favorite secondary sources which they champion, not realizing that it was their source they were attacking, and not me. I have not altered the article as I promised you. I have left my evidence of their bias on the talk page and I have now left. In the end I was getting personal because their lack of knowledge and blatant bias was just too funny. Sorry for that. 86.93.139.223 ( talk) 00:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fresh off your block and acting like this? You apparently haven't learned anything. Disruption is not limited to editing of articles, but also to personal attacks on talk pages. Your continued disruption on the article's talk page needs to stop, and your block needs to be reinstated and lengthened. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You just saved me some time. :-) Arcandam ( talk) 08:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Per your suggestion here, I'll bring this to you before AIV. 113.23.105.122 ( talk · contribs) is the same vandal, now trying to credit the Bee Gees with an Eagles song. Very annoying. I thought that by reverting them on Don Felder they would give up that IP, but I was wrong, and they started again today. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It took me quite a bit of checking before I decided that the evidence of being the same person was enough to justify a block, but I got there in the end. Unfortunately, my guess is that they will come back on yet another IP address, but we can hope. Maybe they will get tired of their silliness and find something else to spend their time on. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Yes, they will come back: and considering 58.187.75.93 ( talk · contribs) and 113.23.41.175 ( talk · contribs) are from Hanoi, Vietnam just like this IP is, it will probably be from the same area. As long as they keep coming back to the Eagles topics, I'll recognize them, even though they seem to move around on the other targets. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, JamesBWatson. Thank you for your response to my request for admin help: I do find this information helpful, for many reasons. I would appreciate it if you would e-mail me my deletion log. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 19:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Will do. (Actually, "deletion log" was the wrong name for it: my mistake.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Anyway, I got the list, and it definitely is helpful, even though it doesn't show me what my edits were. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

HI JAMES,

I don't think the tildes nor the signature/timestamp button works. I have used both after I finished what I have said and I keep getting message stating "please sign your posts". I can't figure out what I am doing wrong. Can you help please. I am new to Wikipedia.DJ MELL STARR 13:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)--DJ MELL STARR 13:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to help, as I don't know exactly what you are doing, so I can't tell what the problem is. Try copying the following text, inside the quotes(but not including the quotes): "This is a test edit. ~~~~" and pasting it just below this message, so that I can see what happens. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

One other thought. Are you sure you haven't changed your signature in your preferences? Click on "My preferences" at the top of the page, and scroll down to the box labelled "Signature". If there is anything in that box, empty it, and then click on "Save". That should reset your signature to the default, if you have changed it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I went to "My preferences" and there was something in that box therefore I emptied it and clicked save. At the end of the next sentence, I will use the tildes. I hope it works > DJ Mell Starr 13:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have read your response that you posted on DJ Mell Starr talk page. I am not DJ Mell Starr. I have created that page for him and have used factual info. Are there statements that should be deleted? If you suggest there are statements that should be deleted, I will do so. I want to submit the article and do not want it to be potentially deleted again. Please advise. --DJ MELL STARR 13:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are not DJ Mell Starr then your username infringes Wikipedia's username policy, as it suggests that you are someone that you are not. You should therefore not continue to edit under this username. The simplest thing to do is just create a new account. However, if you want to keep the edits you have already made attached to your new username, you can request a change of username. Instruction how to do it are at Wikipedia:Changing username, and the place to make the request is Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. As for your request for help on the article, I'm afraid I have to go offline very soon, and don't have time to look into the matter properly, so I can give you a good answer. I'll try to remember to come back to this when I get time, but I'm afraid it may not be for a couple of days. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No James, please don't get me wrong. I am DJ Mell Starr's Wife and he has given me FULL permission to do what I am doing. He is actually aware of all communication but he is not the one actually writing the article. Is this still unacceptable? DJ Mell Starr 13:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I would take a look at WP:COI in terms of that. Also take a look at WP:NOTE to make sure that DJ Mell Starr is notable for this project. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) 申 13:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK will do. Thank you. Does it seem that the signature works now? DJ Mell Starr 14:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr ( talk • contribs)

Hi. Just to let you know that we edit conflicted on Vaibhav Maloo. When you speedied the article, I'd already decided to AfD it, as shown in my edit summary. Caused a bit of work, but I think I've fixed everything now. Your !vote would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Maloo. Best,  — SMALL JIM  10:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Sorry, but what? Speedy and WP:SALT ASAP, and block the editor for the repeated recreation. Bad decision, and WP:WHEEL IMHO ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 10:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have re-read the article very carefully, and I still see absolutely no claim of significance at all. I would be very interested to read what is considered a claim of significance. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking back on it now, it wasn't one of my better decisions, was it! - WP's ongoing concerns about systemic bias and editor retention were in there somewhere. I should, though, set out what happened at this end, for BWilkins' sake at least. After deciding to AfD I indicated my intention in the edit summary. [1] Just three minutes or so later you speedy deleted. [2] When I noticed what had happened, I assumed that you hadn't seen my edit summary before you acted - if you had, you'd have held off or dropped me a quick note to say what you thought was a better action, wouldn't you? - so I restored my prior decision on the basis that we'd simply edit conflicted. I don't think that's unreasonable, but if you do then I apologise to you. The end result should be the same, apart from a slightly less discouraged potential contributor in India.  — SMALL JIM  21:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right in supposing that I hadn't seen your AfD, nor your decline of the speedy deletion nomination. My guess is that I had spent those three minutes reading the article and checking the references. I suppose really, in such a situation ideally I should check that the article is still unchanged before deleting, but in practice such a conflict is so rare that one tends not to think of checking. Anyway, although I disagreed with your decision, I don't regard it as a big deal. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. It is perhaps surprising that such conflicts don't happen more often, though of course the far more common outcome is that an article has already been deleted by the time one decides to do so - that's what I find anyway... That's why I tend to patrol CSD in the UK mornings when it's quieter and there's still something left to do. Best,  — SMALL JIM  21:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Are we cool yet? Sorry for Wiki-Stressing on you about Asia Food Recipe and TravelFox. I humbly fall at your feet. :) Morning277 ( talk) 19:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I had really forgotten about both of them. Not the sort of thing that's worth worrying about. Thanks for the beer: I will enjoy it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my vandalism report regarding the recent edits of User:216.124.255.23. As noted in my comments when filing the report, I was not sure what the procedure is for issuing a warning for more than one act of vandalism by the same user. -- TommyBoy ( talk) 23:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read entire counter point to your decision to delete the Wiki page "Carrington Mitchum" stated below: You recently executed a speedy Deletion of the Wiki page titled "Carrington Mitchum" citing the reason as "A7". I am contesting this deletion for a few important and valid reasons.

Carrington Mitchum is the direct descendant of Hollywood Legend Robert Mitchum. Fans of Robert Mitchum have written me (Bentley Mitchum) and other outlets, started fan websites etc... to try to find out any and all information about Robert Mitchum and his family. Considering Robert Mitchum was a film Legend, his brother was another film star in his own right (150+ films) Robert's son's Chris Mitchum had a very successful film career with over 65 films as did Robert's other son James Mitchum. Chris' daughter Carrie was on "The Bold and the Beautiful" for over 4 years. Chris' son Bentley(me) has starred in over 45 films and even won the Sundance Film festival its easy to understand why The Mitchum family is considered Hollywood Royalty with three generations of actors. Carrington is the daughter of Bentley and is making a name for herself in the competitive figure skating world. As you can see, the Mitchum family is a film Dynasty and there is MUCH interest from fans worldwide in the lives of most all the family members.

I am Actor Bentley Mitchum. There are fans questions on my IMDB page asking about the daughters of Bentley Mitchum, I get mail and Emails weekly from fans of mine as well as fans of Robert's asking about my daughters. I would love for Wikipedia to provide a source for this information. Perhaps you personally don't know of, or like, Robert Mitchum or me, but there are legions of fans that are very loyal to him and his family. Outside of the USA, especially in Europe, the family members of the famous are treated with much reverie and respect. There is much interest in their lives and much respect for family. There are also legions of fans Stateside that have interest in the offspring of celebrities. I myself have been in 45+ films, on all the talk shows from Good Morning America (twice) to the day time and evening talk shows, been in National Enquirer, Teen Beat, and countless News Papers Nation wide. I still to this day receive a ton of fan mail for work I have done on "The Wonder Years", Stephen King's "Sometimes They Come Back", "Man in the Moon" with Reese Witherspoon and Sundance Winner "Ruby in Paradise" with Ashley Judd as well as numerous other films and TV shows. I may not be the highest profile celebrity, but I am a celebrity and I come from a celebrity family. Other Celebrities children have Wiki pages.

Wikipedia does have pages of the offspring of celebrities; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suri_Cruise_%28person%29 for instance sets precedence. Maybe you don't see the Mitchum family as important as Tom Cruise's family, however, you do not speak for everyone. There are countless people that have more interest in the Mitchum family than in Tom Cruise's family.

So I humbly request that you reinstate the "Carrington Mitchum" wiki page. She is the direct descendant of Hollywood royalty, She is making her own name in the figure skating world, other celebrities children have Wiki pages - BTW - As another point of interest, that I was planning to add to Carrington's page, Carrington is being coached by ex-Olympians, and her mentor on the ice is National Champion Ashley Cain. Carrington is the grand daughter (mother's side) of Jack Davis who was one of the original "Our Gang" cast AND is ALSO the grand niece (mother's side)of Silent Film Legend Harold Lloyd (Considered the 3rd genius with Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton).

Many people inquire about The Mitchum Family, and Carrington Mitchum from around the world. Lets give them a source for their information. Thank you for your time. SageInsight ( talk) 03:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Bentley Mitchum

I suggest that you may find it helpful to look at the notability guidelines, particularly the general notability guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is also relevant. For a person to be teh subject of an article, Wikipedia requires evidence that that person is notable, not that they have connection with other people who are notable. I am sure you are right in saying that being closely related to another famous person is, in many cases, sufficient to encourage some people to take an interest. However, we do not have an article on a subject because some people are interested in that subject, unless the subject has the sort of coverage required by Wikipedia's notability standards.

Your reference to Suri Cruise (person) is odd, as that page is no more than a redirect to Tom Cruise, and has been a redirect for more than three years. However, even if you can find an article on someone whose only claim to significance is relationship to another, more notable, person, that will do nothing to justify the existence of this one. Since anyone in the world can create a Wikipedia account and create articles, we get many unsuitable articles, most of which are quickly deleted, but some of them remain for a surprisingly long time before they are noticed and dealt with. It follows that the existence of an article with particular characteristics is no guarantee at all that those characteristics are suitable, and Wikipedia does not work on precedents. You may find it helpful to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted Wikipedia:Customizing_watchlists for me (db-g7) - could you please undelete it? Thank you. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 08:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, one of the repeatedly recreated not-yet-notable footballer articles that you salted has now made his debut (in front of 87,000 in the biggest game of the year, no less!). Can you please unsalt Kirk Ugle. I doubt any of the previous versions are worth saving and have just created a stub for it. User:The-Pope/Kirk Ugle ‎Thanks. The-Pope ( talk) 12:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Your stub is now at Kirk Ugle. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt service! The-Pope ( talk) 12:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have another one for you, exactly the same - Jarryd Lyons (footballer) should be at Jarryd Lyons, but it was salted after that spate of silly one line footballer articles. Thanks in advance. The-Pope ( talk) 16:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

And Jacob Brennan (footballer) should be at Jacob Brennan. I wonder how many more are left to do. Thanks The-Pope ( talk) 09:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I didn't read your instructions at the top and "infilled" a previous section rather than adding a new section. We have another "wasn't notable but now is notable" footballer that you salted. Can you please move Jacob Brennan (footballer) over Jacob Brennan. Thanks. The-Pope ( talk) 12:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since this is a continuation of a previous topic rather than a new topic, I preferred the way you did it at first, by adding to an existing section. I did, in fact, see your earlier message, but left it while I dealt with other matters, meaning to come back to it, but then forgot to. Thanks for reminding me. I have moved the article now, and sorry about the delay. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We have another one... a but different this time. Josh Jenkins was (quite rightly at the time) deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Jenkins. He made his debut today ( ref1, ref2), so can you please undelete it, or do I need to go through an official deletion review system? (I am assuming that it is the same guy... born 08 Feb 1989?). If the AFD'd article isn't suitable for mainspace, then could you please userfy it for me. Thanks The-Pope ( talk) 15:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There have, in fact, been three very different articles under the title Josh Jenkins. One of them seems to about the Josh Jenkins that you are referring to, but not the other two. Rather than try to assess the notability of the subject, I have restored the article on the "right" Josh Jenkins, and userfied it at User:The-Pope /Josh Jenkins. I will leave it to you to edit it and then move it to mainspace if and when you judge it is ready. Best of luck with it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The page you removed under CSD#g4 Bideford Football Club, was an improved version with more reliable sources. It deserves to be reviewed again by the NZ portal, and the admins. The new source shows notability, as it shows regular coverage of the competition. Jolliffel ( talk) 10:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) No - it doesn't meet the notability requirements in WP:FOOTY, period ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 10:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing at all in the new version of the article ( Bideford football club) which even begins to address the reasons given for the deletion of the first version ( Bideford 1st XI). JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

although it may not justify notability as defined by wp:footy it does meet wp:gng guidelines Jolliffel ( talk) 09:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You argued in the deletion discussion that the subject was notable, but the closing administrator decided otherwise. It is not for you or me to decide to unilaterally overturn the result of a deletion discussion. If there were any new reasons for regarding the subject as notable, not available at the time of the discussion, then there would be a case for reconsidering the issue, but none have been presented. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

They 2012 competition has since started and is receiving significant coverage online. Does this justify reconsidering the decision? Jolliffel ( talk) 22:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 23:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Jolliffel ( talk) 11:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujjwal Rastogi ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 May 2012‎

Possibly, but can you explain what you are trying to do? JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Rockledge Elementary page should bot be deleted. There are a lot of articles exactly like that one that arent being put under consideration for deletion. So it would be unfair to delete this on.-- Hbk1023 ( talk) 20:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my query as to the deletion of "Carrington Mitchum". The reference links you provided were very helpful and insightful and I see your side of the situation. I truly wish Wiki would have allowed this page, as there are many people interested, but i guess if one were to go with the "by the book guild lines", people's interest is not a criteria. I was wondering if since I personally experience the inquiries, as I am the Father of Carrington, if you would be willing to put a redirect to searches for "Carrington Mitchum" to my wiki page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentley_Mitchum That would be much appreciated. Thank you again for your time. SageInsight ( talk) 02:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Bentley

This is a part of a longer post on the Alkaline Diet Page. It relates to you somewhat. I don't know how to do links so copied it here. Sorry for taking you space up. Also sorry for WP:TLDR.

THE ADMINISTRATORS: Dear administrators. As I am leaving Wiki editing after three days of being involved in it. I shall leave you with this information which I doubt you will read or care about, for my own self respect that I said it. I made a comment about the user Ronz for the administrator WormTT to read. As a newcomer to Wikipedia I followed the WP:BOLD rules and made a comment with uncertainty. I did not know if it was appropriate or not and I explained that with the very clear "Sorry if this is not the appropriate way to communicate this, and please fell free to delete and ignore this message if that is the case." WormTT might have said "Thanks I need to know that as I have to monitor that guy." Or WormTT might have said "I don't need to know that, what were you doing telling me that?!" Being a newcomer I didn't know the answer to that question. As there is another administrator dealing with the Alkaline Diet issues there was no intention to bring this administrator into that discussion. Therefore I was not trying to get support against Ronz. And since I'm not returning to Wikipedia editing, this post is also not made to get any support. Now that I have read some of the rules thrown at me these last 3 days, I can say that your comments here are WP:BATTLEGROUND and also WP:BITE. Rather than respecting my ignorance and reading my clear acknowledgement of this ignorance you have instead attacked me. Having been here three days I have noticed that those who have been here longer like to use countless unexplained WP:XXXX links to justify whatever they say, when ignoring those rules the links refer to. I was warned in WP:BOLD to not be fooled by this. I was also told in WP:BOLD to stand my ground. For example one editor criticized me for being impolite by me saying the words "Funny isn't it?" about another user attacking the very source he was defending, when he thought the comment was from me. Then the editor used the word "Bulls#!t" in a tirade against me. Then he sought to have me blocked. It's ok for him to break the rules but not ok for me the newbie. The same editor entered into a dispute resolution process with me while also asking for me to be blocked, thus cutting me off during the very dispute resolution he initiated. This allowed him to make his points with no way for me to respond. Then he claimed he didn't do that, while posting on a discussion board that he was happy I was blocked. Seeing I was blocked he didn’t say to the administrator “He is a newbie, I’m trying to educate him and resolve this, please unblock him.” Of course this block was also supported by the administrator who blocked me who could have seen I was in a dispute resolution process. I don't know how to block someone. But why would I want to? A few harsh words were said to me. Big deal. I'm an adult and I know that sticks and stones can break my bones, but words cannot hurt me. WP:CONS Consensus can only be reached when both sides can communicate, not just one side, because the other side is blocked from expressing their opinion. This would be against the Wikipedia rules WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BOLD. Yet me having real points worth discussing has seen me blocked for a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. It's not such a mentality, it is just me knowing what I am talking about, while also being a newcomer. Some more experienced editors who know nothing of the topic are controlling the article as if they own it. See WP:OWN, WP:GANG, WP:TAGTEAM. None of you administrators have done anything to help that newcomer other than block him. Perhaps you could acknowledge my relative WP:COMPETENCE and follow the principle of WP:DONTBITE. And please don’t say that I was offered a mentor to guide me. This guy had attacked me repeatedly without any knowledge of the topic, and rather than wanting to resolve this article, wanted to take me on a journey following him around Wikipedia to see him edit articles I would probably know nothing about. I mean WP:WTF? Having had 3 days to look over the rules I have seen that most of what experienced editors claim against me are followed by WP:XXXX, yet they are not in line with the actual rules they quote. Once I looked up the rules I saw that they were often acting totally against the rule they were quoting. Fortunately an administrator has taken up my points as he knows the rules and knows that the comments against me were false. Since the administrator cannot easily be blocked the people that blocked me have had to actually communicate with him. Having seen them do that, they now agree to my points about the article. This only happened when those points came from an administrator, not me. I now see the WP:TAGTEAM that blocked me twice have been defeated by an administrator. With your help though they were able to block me twice, directly against the principles of WP:BOLD and WP:BITE. The debate about the accuracy of one source in the article has been the same for the administrator as it was for me. Yet when this opinion came from a newcomer it was dismissed and I was blocked. When it came from an administrator, who is not even as WP:COMPETENT as me, it was listened to and agreed with. So well done for biting the newcomer and now I am leaving Wikipedia. See WP:DONTBITE. Rather than contributing to an article I know a lot about, it will remain with those people who have no knowledge of the topic, who misrepresent the topic, misquote a secondary source, give it undue weight WP:UNDUE. They have been repeatedly accused of bias, abuse and destructive editing over a period of time by a number of other editors. Just look up on the talk page and you will see this. My original post was added to their comments and Ronz kindly moved it down to the bottom so that I seemed like a lone voice in the wilderness, rather than yet another person with concerns about this article. See WP:GANG. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.139.223 ( talk)

In case you come back and read this, despite your statement that you are leaving, I will mention a couple of things. Firstly, I am genuinely sorry that you think I attacked you. I did not intend to do so. I tried hard to explain in as friendly a way as possible as I could what the problems were, to try to help you. As you know, I also unblocked you. It is very unfortunate that my attempts to communicate with you evidently failed. Secondly, I agree with you about the excessive use of WP:XXXX links. I won't say I never use them, but I try to minimise use of them, especially when dealing with new editors, preferring to explain in direct English what the issues are. JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I frequently revert vandalism, infact thats pretty much all I do but I have no Barnstars not even the antivandal one, is it because I'm not well known here-- Lerdthenerd wiki defender 19:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I remember the first time I got a barnstar. I really felt it meant something. Now I don't. Many barnstars are given out for totally unconstructive reasons, and even the ones which are there for good work are also there because someone happened to choose to give one, which can be very random. Some people who are here mainly to play around get lots of barnstars from other people who are here for the same purpose. Some disruptive editors get barnstars from other disruptive editors. My opinion is that, while it is sort of nice to get a barnstar, they don't really mean much. (That is one of the reasons why I stopped putting barnstars I get on my user page some while ago.) If it's any comfort to you, I have just checked a sample of your edits, and I see really good work there, much better than I have seen from some editors with pages full of barnstars. Well done. If you like, I can translate that into a barnstar for you. Yeah, I may as well. Well done. JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks-- Lerdthenerd wiki defender 19:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm being accused of abuse of admin powers, I'd quite like to have someone take a look over my actions at User talk:Stho002. It started as a simple 48hr block for personal attacks on 12th May (with a prior edit-warring block last year), but it escalated, and I've ended up indef blocking and suspending Talk page access. Your assessment would be much appreciated, if you have the time and you'd be kind enough. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 22:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the editor's history. I see contentious editing, persistent incivility, personal attacks, repeated refusal to assume good faith, deliberate disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point, persistent "I didn't hear that", endless pointless wikilawyering, edit warring, attempts to game the system, ... If ever there was an editor who needed to be blocked indefinitely and have talk page revoked, this is it. Far from abusing your admin powers, I think you held back more than you needed to: you were still patiently and politely trying to explain to the editor what the consequences might be at a time when quite a few admins I can think of would have already indef-blocked and revoked talk page access. You say you are "being accused of abuse of admin powers". If all you mean by that is that Stho002 said so on his talk page, then the accusation is of no more value than much of his other ranting against anyone and everyone who disagrees with him about anything, and I think you can safely forget about it. If, however, the accusation has been made elsewhere or by someone else, let me know and I'll look at that too. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's greatly appreciated - and there's no abuse accusation anywhere else. Cheers :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not an admin and stayed off his talk page during the recent issues but I know the history of this. I think you handled it well and showed great patience. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 07:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's appreciated. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

I am inexperienced in editing Wikipedia.

There are currently at least two pages about Big Society. Two differ in capitalisation: Big_Society and Big_society. The former is accessed from a Google search. The latter is accessed by a search within Wikipedia for big society (lower case). (There also seems to be a third, which you and I just edited).

The content of the two pages with content is drifting apart.

To make matters more complex, the two browsers I use, Firefox and Safari, differ in they way they react to attempts to edit a page, with the former seeming to jump about randomly between the differently capitalised links.

Can you help in merging them into one page?

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.189.245 ( talk) 08:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There are indeed two pages, Big Society and Big society. However, Big society is just a redirect to Big Society. that means that the page contains only a link to Big Society, and if you click on Big society, you will be automatically transferred to Big Society. If you do that, you will see near the top of the article, the message "Redirected from Big society", which will not be there if you get there directly by clicking on Big Society, even though in both cases you will be looking at the same article. You can check this by making an edit to Big Society, and then clicking on Big society, in which case you should see that the edit appears there too. The point of all this is that people looking for an article on this subject may search for the title either with or without the capital S, and whichever they choose they will get taken to the same article. My guess is that you have visited Big Society both directly and via the redirect Big society, and thought you were visiting two different but similar articles. Judging from your edit summary Matching the page "Big society" to the page "Big Society", you have sometimes thought you were editing Big society when in fact you were editing Big Society. The "third" page you mention, which you and I have edited, was the actual redirect page "Big society", which you can see here. Normally you don't see that page, as you are taken immediately to the other page. I hope that has made things clearer. I remember being confused by redirects when I first started editing Wikipedia, but once you realise what is going on, they are quite straightforward. If there really is a third page, duplicating the article, which I haven't seen, then you are perfectly right in saying that they should be merged to avoid their content drifting apart. However, I can't see one. If you really are sure there is one then perhaps you can give me its exact title.

Please feel welcome to ask any more questions I may be able to help with. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• One more thought. My guess is that Firefox "seeming to jump about randomly between the differently capitalised links" is probably you trying to go to Big society and being taken to Big Society by the redirect. That should happen with any browser: possibly you just don't happen to have done that with Safari. I have never used Safari, so it is possible that it does something different, but I have no idea why it should. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for blocking the hacker of my page David Bawden (Pope Michael) Popemichael ( talk) 16:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Good day James. I would like to direct your attention to User talk:Shaeso. The rest explains itself. Have yourself a great day, regards.  -- WikHead ( talk) 21:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That's enough. It'd be acceptable, welcome even, if this fellow's contributions challenged some of the accepted conventions, allowing articles to grow in ways unthought of. But he ignores any and all responses to his talk page, offers to speak over edits in consensus and review the styles guide, and even a past block by yourself. He keeps pressing on deleting valid material and making niggling tangent edits that are bizarrely specific and of no use as a reference. Whatever advice he receives he invalidates by hammering his edits home ever so slightly differently.

I have defended him in the past, reached out to him to join discussion, but he refuses to listen. Heck, he refuses to speak. This has gone on for over a year. I mulled over leaving a message here, as I still feel he's making a genuine attempt to be helpful but doing so in an utterly combative way. We just can't get through to him and are at a loss on what to do. Papacha ( talk) 02:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I dropped you a line via email. Oh and also reply to my other address...I've screwed something up with the address you have. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries about my email being public, I have it on my userpage :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(in Russian) Уважаемый сударь. Пожалуйста, прекратите устанавливать необоснованые шаблоны на страницу Nikolai Bartossik. Те замечания, на которые Вы указываете, уже устранены, ссылки и источники проверены, страница по сравнению с первоначальным вариантом кардинально переработана. Если лично вы не можете проверить не англоязычные источники и ссылки, приведенные в статье , то это отнюдь не значит, что они сомнительны. С моими наилучшими пожеланиями -- AMY 81-412 ( talk) 12:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks sir JamesBWatson for understanding me and for unblocking my account.Thank you very much sir.Have a good day. Raghusri ( talk) 10:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears I'm a vandal. I even got templated for it. Pretty ballsy of her, to the point of actually being amusing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing to do there, I just hadn't bugged you in a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Well, now the IP keeps reverting me, adding all that crap back. I've reverted twice already, it isn't vandalism per se, just very annoying. I warned him on unsourced info, you might give it a peek. It isn't our Tinga Tinga Terrorist, but at least it's SOMETHING. Been boring over there ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple concerns about this editor and I was wondering if you could address them. First off, an edit by User:Mlaffs was reverted and a template placed on Mlaffs' talk page. This wouldn't be a problem if User:Yworo didn't use Rollback to revert Mlaffs edit. It wasn't vandalism. I checked User:Yworo's contribs and found several examples of him/her using Rollback inappropriately ( 1, 2, 3 which included a warning, 4 same user another warning, 5 with warning). Those are just going back to March, there are probably more. Those are clear violations of the Rollback rules and misuse of vandalism templates. I would request his Rollback be revoked until he can learn to use the tool properly (one mistake is one too many), but that is your decision. I do feel that someone needs to talk with him. I have left a post on his talk page, but coming from an admin, it will carry more weight. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh and Congrats on your 74,000th edit. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed I had reached 74000, but since you mentioned it, I checked, and found I am well past 75000. I wonder if you got the figure from some source which is updated only occasionally. Anyway, thanks for the congratulations.

I agree that Yworo's warnings to the IP editor were inappropriate, as the edits, while unhelpful, were not vandalism. However, you seem to be mistaken about abuse of rollback. This is what a rollback looks like. Note that the edit summary starts with "Reverted edits by...", and just says what edit was reverted and what edit it was reverted back to, with no further information. This is what you get if you click on "undo", and just accept the default edit summary. It produces effectively the same thing as rollback, but can be distinguished from rollback by the different wording, beginning with "Undid revision..." instead of "Reverted edits by..." This is an edit done by clicking on "undo", but adding my own wording to the default edit summary. You can see that it wasn't done by using rollback, because it begins "Undid revision..." instead of ""Reverted edits...", but a much more important difference from rollback is that it does include a specific reason for the reversion, in this case "Reverting my test edit". The lack of individual edit summaries is the reason why use of rollback is restricted, and using "undo" and adding your own comment to the default edit summary is a completely different matter, and is fully acceptable. Of the edits you list, the only edit using rollback was this one. More importantly, the other edits do not just use the default "undo" edit summary, but do give individual edit summaries. I agree that the one edit you list which used rollback should not have used rollback. However, I think the right way to deal with that one wrong use is a friendly note on the user's talk page. If we applied the principal "one mistake is one too many" generally on Wikipedia, we would not have many editors left: I, for example, would have been banned years ago. None of us always does the right thing, and only if rollback is consistently misused is there a case for revoking rollback rights, and even then usually only if friendly messages have had no effect. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just fyi, Neutralhomer has approached me with the same complaint and I have responded on my talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That is correct as I thought you had gone offline for the morning (or night depending on where you are). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ooops. :S OK, yeah, I did goof those two up and mixed up an undo and a rollback revert. That's my fault and my goof. Which pretty much wipes out the whole post. Well, I feel like a putz. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have issued an apology for the accusation of User:Yworo misusing his Rollback feature. I have also removed the accusation from his talk page with an edit summary apology as well. -

• Yworo removed my entire post as "ranting" but not before posting a talkback notice on my talk page. I am unsure what that was all about. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I am unsure what that was all about, either. However, I reckon the best thing to do is probably to forget it and move on. JamesBWatson ( talk) 00:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Now he is reverting every edit I make to the radio stations section of the Taos, New Mexico page. But of WP:OWN going on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can jump in here. I know there is a rule for his question, but for the life of me I can't find it. I dealt with it while creating an article 2 years ago, but forgot what it was. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Do feel free to join the discussion on the article talk page. You know nothing about Taos and are not qualified to slash the list of radio stations there. All the stations I listed broadcast in Taos. Yworo ( talk) 00:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Between his attitude and his insults, you can deal with him, James. He obviously hasn't a clue what he is doing, has no intentions of following the rules and has admitted as much and wouldn't know couth it smacked him upside the head. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And that's a clear and gratuitous personal attack. Yworo ( talk) 03:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This coming from a person who posted on my talk page: "Why don't you take your Aspergers induced lack of social skills elsewhere and stop harassing me". Pot meet Kettle. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I urge you to both to drop your quarrel. Both of you have some valid points, but both of you are being very unconstructive. JamesBWatson ( talk) 08:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I just get pissed when someone so blantantly insults my Aspergers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw your name in the history of Zeibekiko (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can you review the recent activity over there? I reverted one persons edit, then reverted back further after reviewing what appeared to be consensus. The material has since been updated again. As I can't read the most recently added ref, and as I'm not familiar with the history of the dispute at the article, I wanted to ask someone with more of a history over there to look over it. I'll also be asking Future Perfect at Sunrise to take a look. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article yet again. It is clear that the "Greek" explanation has been repeatedly plugged by Greek nationalist accounts and IPs. It also looks to me as though there are sockpuppets or meatpuppets involved. You may like to take it to WP:SPI: I don't have time to do so now. I think the version you reverted to is probably sound, and the version just before your editing, which tied to produce a compromise, was a good attempt to settle the dispute. However, I have no intention of editing the article myself: I don't wish to become involved. JamesBWatson ( talk) 18:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoetymology is useful in this article. Millions of articles have pseydoetymologies after the adequately informed. My opinion -- Dactarianou ( talk) 23:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WilliamH ( talk) 19:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Just wondering about the reason for declining the initial appeal of block made by leannemarketer. Could I also see some proof of your reasoning? It would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Leannemarketingdirector ( talk) 12:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm. [3] Doc talk 12:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Leannemarketingdirector, there are several ways I could answer you. I could assume that you are an independent editor who just happens to have chosen a similar username, just happens to have stumbled on the block of that other user, and has not looked at the other user's editing history, and so are not aware of the vandalism, trolling, and threats that the user has done. In that case, I could easily give you links to the relevant edits so that you could see for yourself. Alternatively, I could assume that you are the same user evading your block, and so blind to the nature of your own edits that you honestly don't realise why what you were doing was unconstructive. In that case, I could easily give you a link to Wikipedia:Competency is required, to explain why that lack of understanding confirms that you should not be unblocked. Or I could assume that you are the same person evading your block, and that you are perfectly intelligent enough to know full well why your editing was unacceptable. In that case I could just remove the trolling message you have posted to this page, without responding to it. Instead, I have chosen, purely for my own amusement, to list all these possibilities. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish this place had a "Like" button, lol. He iro 16:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it was purely for my own amusement. You're not allowed to be amused by it too. JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Like ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 23:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What is it usually, after three declined unblock requests that the talk page access is revoked? They are still claiming that their "human rights of freedom of speak" have been denied them, which apparently is "acosting and is against the law". [4] I don't think a fourth or a fifth unblock request will have any different rationale put forth for unblocking, but I could be wrong. Doc talk 01:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That winking face is pretty terrifying, actually. Olaf Davis ( talk) 23:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's meant to frighten away people like you, who were supposed to have left Wikipedia. This is what I felt like when I saw your name here: 09:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of the issues surrounding the edit war on the Staines page. It needed the level headed mind of an independent administrator to deal with it. I feel that this was a just decision and I hope that you continue to monitor the situation. Thank you. AndrewJFulker ( talk) 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Need an admin to step-in and referee things here. Posted some correction templates on the Taos page, got this lovely message. As a member of a couple WikiProjects that handle town and city pages, I know when a page has problems. That would has more than others including lack of references, original research, cleanup issues, non-notable information, etc. The bully message was nice, but unnecessary. I have asked the folks at WP:CITIES to come in and do a little cleanup work as well, but Yworo is making a little hard to work at the moment. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Whining to an admin who has twice told you to drop it isn't likely to get you much sympathy. Yworo ( talk) 21:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

He took me to ANI and did the ol' one sided story bit. That one is getting old. Then insults me here. Pot is runnin' into kettle alot today. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not an insult unless your skin is made of filo. Yworo ( talk) 21:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me, I need a sandwich. James, you handle the Taos article, I have also turned it over to WP:CITIES so they will handle it regardless. I'm at ANI, so I can't do much. But I am getting that sandwich. Thanks... Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sir

I wish to report again that several users are attempting to block me from editing this page. I have done nothing wrong, all I am doing is reverting the article to how it was originally. They want to input negative assertions about this person, which amount to nothing other than personal attacks. Yet when I try to undo their changes it seems they are 'ganging up' on me by making threats against me. They want to ban me permanantely and prevent me from having my say. I feel victimised, harassed and bullied and am getting upset about it.

I have never warred and I am not a vandal. Yet these are other users are trying to discredit me and it is not fair. In fact these users are warring and vandalising and they are allowed to get away with it. I do hope am not being discriminated against.

I am doing this because Mr Haddad is someone I know as he is the Imam at my local mosque. He also has young children and if they see what has been written about him it would cause this a great deal of distress.

I have tried to mediate with the user Blixx but he/she has ignored me and has continued regardless.

Please assist me with this issue.

Shafic Essop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaeso ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Blix1900 ( talk) 18:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your fair and reasoned accession to my unblock request. I really do want to improve the article about my town, and detest that "70-80% in many wards" nonsense, but will not delete it just yet until I have better considered how to make it stick! Likewise, I am not sure the "British Med" references belong: Hounslow IS near Staines - but not that near: Heathrow is in between, so hundreds of airlines past and present have been based "near Staines": looking at the references given, with addresses, I wonder if it's some kind of advertising campaign? Anyway, for the moment I am reluctant to edit anything in the light of recent events. Thanks once again By the way - when I learned about i it was always called j: I think it's much nicer that way, and "e to the j pi" rolls off the tongue better than "e to the i pi", don't you think? Northern winter ( talk) 10:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Northern winter

No I don't, but I expect it's just a matter of what one is used to: "e to the i pi" seems smoother to me, perhaps just because it's how I learnt it, and presumably likewise for you and "e to the j pi". Do you have a background in electronics? Electronic and electrical engineering are the two most obvious areas where it is called "j", since "i" is used for current. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes - you are correct: maths and physics at college, so "i" was avoided in case it got confused with "I", current. I guess "i" for the imaginary unit makes sense, but then "I" for current never did ... until I looked it up on Wikipedia just now! 92.14.180.233 ( talk) 22:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Northern winter

Hello James,

I received a notice that you reviewed my article on " Negative code" and it is scheduled for removal. I think I understand why, but I have a lot of questions. I'm new to Wikipedia; I am still trying to understand the formatting and dynamics. I'm embarrassed to say, I didn't even know my article actually posted. I thought I had to "sign" the article before it was made available to the general public. With that being said, I've considered posting the existing content to the Wiktionary site. I've also reviewed a similar terms such as " Source code" on Wikipedia as a reference for how my article should be formatted. Basically, it's my understanding that if I write a full article on why "Negative code" is important for programmers then my article won't be deleted? I'm assuming the premise is the reader does not know anything about Computer Science, programming, and source code. Can you point me to some better examples then the one I found? What do you suggest?

Dkodysz ( talk) 02:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Although my usual preference is to answer a message on the page where it is posted, to keep conversations together, on this occasion I have decided it will be more helpful to reply on your talk page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you review a block for a user. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 10:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now, I'm afraid not, as I don't have time. However, if it's still of any use to you in about 20 hours from now, you can let me know what user and I'll look into it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your message on my talk page.The user is Intoronto1125 ( talk · contribs) the user has over 34000 edits 76% to them to Articlespace and has created 649 articles and is a major contributor in particular in the multi sports area.He has been indef blocked since last April 26th 2012 for edit warring right after a unblock.He is clearly eligible for WP:Offer . The request is basically because he has very major contributor and may get demotivated and leave if not unblocked .It is nearly a month since he was blocked that this request is coming.Thanks. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 14:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, sorry it has taken me so long to get round to dealing with this.

I have had a look at the editor's history. I will start by giving a brief account of some of the negative things I have seen which may be seen as justifying the block, then I will mention the positive things you have mentioned, which may be seen as mitigating factors, and then I will tell you the conclusion I have reached.

The editor has repeatedly been blocked, most commonly for edit warring. He/she has shown an aggressive attitude to other editors that he/she doesn't agree with, is at times grossly uncivil, and has repeatedly made personal attacks on other editors over a prolonged period, at times using underhand means to try to give the impression that the attacks came from someone else. He/she has lied about his/her editing in attempts to evade the consequences. He/she more than once, when blocked, promised that the same behaviour will not continue, and then continued in the same way. More than once, unblocking administrators have made it explicit that the editor is being unblocked with some degree of reluctance or doubt, and that the block is conditional on the editor's not continuing in the same problematic ways. The most recent unblock was based on the editor's acceptance of conditions, more than one of which he/she blatantly and deliberately broke the very next day. Despite numerous blocks for edit warring, the editor still manages to insist that his/her repeated reversion are not edit warring, somehow having failed to grasp that edit warring is still edit warring if you are convinced you are "RIGHT". I could go on, but I think that gives an indication of how the editor has been disruptive and uncooperative.

As you rightly point out, the editor has created 649 articles. There is a wide range of opinion on how far a lot of article creation by an editor should be allowed to influence decisions on other matters concerning that editor. There are some who come close to thinking that a "good content creator" should never be excluded, no matter how grossly he/she has abused their position in other respects. At the other end of the spectrum there are those who think that it should make no difference at all: a given offense should be treated exactly the same, no matter who committed it. I don't place myself at either end of the spectrum. I frequently tolerate behaviour that I would prefer not to have to, if it comes from someone who is doing good for the project, but I nevertheless think that there is a limit. I have looked at 30 of the 649 articles. Most of them deal with small details of a particular sporting competition. While these are no doubt useful to enthusiasts of the particular sports, they are scarcely major contributions to the encyclopaedia, even though there are many of them.

This editor has already repeatedly had allowances made because he/she is a substantial content creator. In the unblock of the user's very first block (ignoring a block which the blocking admin unblocked within minutes, and which was evidently a mistake), the unblocking admin made it clear that he was unblocking only because he was making allowances because of "the many constructive edits". Similar allowances have been made again and again. As I said above, the user has repeatedly given assurances to mend his/her wasy, and has not done so. The behaviour after the last unblock is difficult to see as anything but deliberate flouting of the unblock conditions he/she had agreed to. In short, as you will by now have guessed, I see no basis for considering an unblock. The editor has already used up more than his/her fare share of last chances, allowances because he/she creates a lot of content, etc etc. You say "he has very major contributor and may get demotivated and leave if not unblocked". However, when an editor causes endless trouble, and takes up a huge amount of time for other editors who could have spent it on other tasks, there comes a point when the negative impact outweighs any benefit. JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

...you missed the talk. Buggie111 ( talk) 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So I did. Thanks. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your deny to remove the autoblock on my IP, I understand how it looks, but I'd like to clear things up. I have the revision user template in use on the edit notice for my talk page. It wasn't showing my name, so I thought something wasn't working on the template. That being said, I knew the password to that old account, so I logged in, strictly for the purpose of seeing if the revision user template would show the name of the user. I logged straight out when I realized that it wouldn't let me see the edit notice on this blocked account, and noticed there was an autoblock on my account, so I requested unblock. The autoblock is off now and I have no problem that you didn't unblock, but I just didn't want you or other users having a different view of what happened or me as a user. Hope to hear back from you. Thank you, TRLIJC19 ( talk) 18:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen User:Gaba p on Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute? Seems to be needlessly combative, you could say my spidy sense is tingling. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but not enough so that I can see anything that requires action. However, I've had only a quick glance at the recent contributions, because at present I don't have the time to look thoroughly into this endless dispute, so feel free to raise the matter with someone else if you like: I would not, under the circumstances, regard it as forum shopping. JamesBWatson ( talk) 07:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Till I Go Home ( talk) 10:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find my Tails Doll article a piece of vandalism, I just did a bad job.

- Oskarmandude —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Well, on that, Wikipedia was being stupid on my system and I was just messing around and I accidentally saved the page. -Oskarmandude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskarmandude ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear JamesBWatson,

If you remembered, I have previously uploaded my article on the BHP House in Melbourne, Australia. After reviews from you, I have edited the text and I am attempting to upload the article again. I seek your kind advice to upload this text again. I do not wish to be blocked or be unable to upload in the future due to the errors in my article. This uploading of the article is extremely crucial to me as this is a university assessment and I need it to be uploaded permanently.

I seek your kind understanding and prompt response to this particular issue and am grateful in advance with your reply.

Many thanks, Zenasdeng — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenasdeng ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

JBW, it appears to me that there are still copyvio problems with this article. (I can't remember exactly how the article looked before; I think, however, that the newly created BHP House is very nearly a verbatim repost of the last speedied version.) I tried to explain the problem last time on Zenasdeng's talk page, but the article still seems to contain material copied verbatim from Philip Goad's Melbourne Architecture and perhaps copyvios of other sources. We also have an older article on the same building at 140 William Street, so this is a duplicate that would need to be merged even if there were no copyright issues. I'll leave it to you to decide the best course here. Deor ( talk) 11:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The article for the band Make Me Famous (which you deleted twice) was recreated under the title Make Me Famous (band) in an attempt to get around the salting of the page. Just letting you know this in advance being that it's technically a violation being that someone made the page with the tab "(band)" at the end just to get around the protection of it being created. • GunMetal Angel 19:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No probz, also you gotta delete this too It's Now or Never (Make Me Famous album); in the words of the band "Once You Killed a Cow, You Gotta Make a Burger" hahahaha. • GunMetal Angel 20:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Another band

Bleed from Within (band) was made since the space Bleed from Within was salted. Do you think this should be deleted too or should you unsalt Bleed from Within and move the page there? I'll leave that choice up to you. • GunMetal Angel 08:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That was a repost of an article deleted after a deletion discussion, so it's a straightforward speedy delete. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow. But yeah you took care of it fast, it's just surprising since it's been up for more than a year and no one did it until now. But anywhoo, you didn't take care of the deletion of the article for album for the band you deleted yesterday here » It's Now or Never (Make Me Famous album). • GunMetal Angel 09:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but someone else has done it now. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi James, I'm a bit curious as to why you deleted the Werribee Plaza article - citing that there had been a discussion. Is this 2006 discussion the one that has lead to it's deletion? -- MST☆ R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I very carefully read the discussion, and decided that, although the article has been substantially edited since its re-creation, nothing in it addressed the reasons for deletion given in that discussion. However, if you think there are good reasons for regarding the conclusion of that discussion to be inapplicable then I can restore the article, and invite the editor who tagged it for speedy deletion to take it to a new AfD. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hate to be a pain, but I'd like to revamp the article; and ultimately participate in a pending AfD :D Can you please restore it? Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience, -- MST☆ R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, have you seen one? do you know anyone who has one? Do you know whether any of the reporters who have written articles on this thing have actually seen one of them? Newspapers are not immune from hoaxes, as we are not. Maybe I should upgrade to a 7.5/10. Regards Crusoe8181 ( talk) 12:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it may be a hoax, but there is sufficient support for it in numerous sources to prevent its being a blatant and obvious hoax, as required for speedy deletion. If you have good reasons to think it is a hoax, then I suggest taking it to Articles for deletion and giving your reasons there. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

One more thought. There seem to be plenty of sources, so maybe it's a notable hoax rather than a notable atlas. If you can find reliable sources saying it's a hoax, then perhaps you can try rewriting the article to says so. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Might just be the last one I ever bother reporting; multilingual Renaissance man Mr Cheers does know how to use ratiocinatio polysylogistica to his own benefit, though Crusoe8181 ( talk) 12:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What??? JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

G'day James, this week's undeletion request is Jonathan Simpkin, but probably not the 2011 version that you deleted and salted but the original 2009 version that was deleted by User:NJA (who is no longer active here) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Raymond as not meeting WP:ATHLETE. Simpkin made his AFL debut tonight,( [5]) so now meets the notability requirements. If the article is poor, then please userfy to my userspace and unsalt. Thanks, The-Pope ( talk) 14:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done The article had so little content that I'm not sure it wouldn't have been less trouble for you to have started from scratch, but it's now at User:The-Pope/Jonathan Simpkin. Good luck with improving it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Zendoodles ( talk)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zendoodles ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 26 May 2012

This page is a well-referenced complete list of cemeteries in Hudson County, New Jersey with a substantial amount of photographic material and as an appropriate fork of List of cemeteries in New Jersey. Cannot review history, but do not believe it has ever been reviewed for deletion, and at this time would it not fulfill the critieria for deletion (it may have at a much earlier date, but no longer does). It is a list that fulfills notability, is comprehensive, and encyclopedic . Can you please restore? Thanks- Djflem ( talk) 16:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

My own view is that the changes to the article do not significantly invalidate the reasons given in the deletion discussion. However, I accept that it is quite different from the version that was discussed, so I think, on reflection, that I was wrong to delete it. I have restored the article. JamesBWatson ( talk) 18:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a list: how can it possibly be "substantially different" from a previous list? How has it managed to overcome the rationale for its original deletion, and how does it therefore bypass WP:DRV? -- Calton | Talk 04:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It's "substantially different" from the previous list because the previous one was just a list of cemeteries, whereas the current version also includes photographs, latitudes, dates of establishment, etc. In my opinion it doesn't overcome the rationale for its original deletion. I don't think Deletion review is relevant, because what is at issue is not undeletion of an existing deleted article, but speedy deletion of a new, and significantly different, article. My own view is that such lists are pretty pointless, but I really don't see that it satisfies any of the criteria for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting article. Can you please also restore the correspondent talk page? Can you please direct me as to where I can find the history of previous discussion to which you refer. Thanks Djflem ( talk) 22:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Restoring talk page:  Done. Thanks for pointing this out, and sorry I didn't think to do it when I restored the article.

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cemeteries in Hudson County, New Jersey. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In the fall of 2010 you deleted the article Al Wafa (Israel) as an expired prod. Unfortunately, whoever placed that prod didn't bother to leave a heads-up on my talk page, and I only became aware of the deletion now.

I request userification to User:Geo Swan/userified 2012-05/Al Wafa (Israel) please. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson ( talk) 18:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Geo Swan ( talk) 04:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please unprotect Dutch people which you protected last year. There is no reason for it to be protected any longer.  Liam987 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done I hope you are right, and the problem editor doesn't come back. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)