User talk:JBW: Difference between revisions

If I have 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, then place {{Talkback|JBW}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6

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

I find it much more helpful if a discussion is all in one place, so for example if I post a message on your talk page please answer there: if you post a message on this page I will answer here (if anywhere). When I post a comment I almost always put the page on my watch list, so I should see your reply. However, you are welcome to make sure by putting {{Talkback|your username}} at the bottom of this page.

Why did you remove the template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion criterion G1 is for "incoherent text or gibberish". This article was not incoherent text or gibberish: it contains perfectly coherent text, so the speedy deletion nomination was likely to fail. However, the article is clearly about an animal but does not indicate the importance or significance of that animal, so criterion A7 is likely to succeed. I see that other speedy deletion nominations you have made have also been rejected because the criteria chosen do not fit the articles in question: I strongly recommend reading the criteria carefully before tagging any more articles. While on the subject of speedy deletion proposals, whenever you make one you should also place a warning on the talk page of the user who created the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well thank you for telling me why some of mine fail. I'll reread the guidelines. I've been getting in the habit of manually warning the creator on computers without twinkle due to them using IE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wrote the above post I have looked at some more of your edits, and found that often you make perfectly good speedy deletion proposals, including notifying the user. When I wrote the above I had only seen a few of your less successful attempts. It's just a question of experience: keep working at it, and by all means if you are not sure ask, as you did above. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way James, I find CSD Helper a useful script for declining CSDs - it automatically notifies the tagger in a similar way to Twinkle's notification of creators. You might find it helpful. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that: I didn't know. I still find "James" a little funny. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is there anything you'd prefer? JamesBWatson seems a bit... formal. Also, I have some other handy scripts in my vector.js and monobook.js that may or may not be of interest. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Keep on with James, I'm not objecting, I just find it a little amusing, that's all. (2) by all means let me know what the scripts are if you feel inclined to, and I'll see if any of them are of any interest to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. The "admin rights" and "name highlighter" scripts are the non-admin-specific ones I find most useful, but you may find something else of use. By the way, I declined your A10 tagging of Disney XD (Australia) in favour of a redirect: if there's some reason you feel a redirect is not suitable feel free to retag it. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Thanks. (2) Redirect is fine: perhaps actually better than deletion, now I think of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for letting me know. pls assume that all the info I provided falls under one 'keep'. I await your decision. Please send me a message after references on said subject are verified. Article will be re-written to fall in line with Wiki's guidelines. You've been very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milanbijoux (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of subject being the daughter of Dr. Blay-Miezah: 5th to last paragraph of article http://www.modernghana.com/news2/224131/7/blay-miezahs-billions.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milanbijoux (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, whether she is his daughter or not is irrelevant, because the issue is whether she is notable, and notability is not inherited. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey im sorry about removing the notices it is my first page on wikipedia and im getting help from some of sigur ros and jonsi administration now.. im Tómas Davíð's manager. sorry about all incinveiance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.43.141 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the page has not been made by the one and the same and is not created for promotion purposes! in the city of reykjavik, Tómas Davíð has become a huge musical icon and has a big variety of fans and adorers in the music and art scene of iceland, please do not make statements about us that are completely irrelevant, i only stated, as his manager- that it was a mistake that i removed the notices, and the page has to be created because people of iceland and worldwide are getting to know the name Tómas Davíð now that he is touring the world with Jónsi and we need a wikipedia page to show personal musical information so people can find out things and productions about the musician that I am Managing.

Please to not make non logical decisions, please just tell us what we need to do on the page to make it compatible with your website's regulations and need's of reference! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.43.141 (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC) --68.189.43.141 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fully understand all of what is said above, but I will try to make the best of it that I can.

1. I can only assume that "the page has not been made by the one and the same" refers to my statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tómas Davíð that I had formed the impression that Listarmadur and 68.189.43.141 (you) were the same person. Since both of you have stated that you are Tómas Davíð's manager, this does not seem to me to be an unreasonable inference. Does Tómas Davíð have more than one manager?
2. You say that the article "is not created for promotion". However, in this edit you wrote "i am trying here with our technicians to make this page for the big promotions that are coming in april when he goes on tour with jónsi". It is very difficult to read that in any other way than that the article is created as part of a promotion campaign. If it was meant to mean something else then please clarify it, as otherwise both I and others will be misled.
3. Above you wrote "we need a wikipedia page to show personal musical information so people can find out things and productions about the musician that I am Managing". This is a very common reason for creation of Wikipedia articles by people who are not used to how Wikipedia works. However, unfortunately it is not consistent with our policies. Wikipedia does not accept articles the purpose of which is to assist management in publicising their businesses: in fact this is exactly the sort of thing which is referred to as "promotion", so that this contradicts your statement that the article is not created for promotional purposes.
4. You ask me not to make statements about you that are "completely irrelevant". I do not know what statements this refers to. If you can tell me which of my statements you think are irrelevant and why I will certainly consider your opinion. The same applies to your comment about "non logical decisions".
5. You ask what to do to make the article acceptable. Before saying anything else on this I shall point out that you as his manager are strongly discouraged from editing this article at all, as you will see if you read the guideline on conflict of interest. However, I shall give a brief description of what is required for a subject to qualify for an article. Essentially it is necessary to show that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria (if he does). A relevant source of information on this is Wikipedia's guideline on notability of people. The sections on creative professionals and entertainers are particularly worth reading, though neither of them refers directly to musicians. The general notability guideline is also relevant. Essentially what this guideline says is that you need to show that he has been given substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of him. Coverage in his own web site, press releases by his management, announcements of concerts he is to take part in, would not be considered independent. A brief announcement in a newspaper of a forthcoming concert or tour would not be substantial coverage. Blog posts, and forum posts are not usually reliable sources, as in most cases anyone can post there: for the same reason other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. You can read more about his, if you wish to, in the guideline on reliable sources. Naturally it is easiest for editors on English Wikipedia to assess sources and decide whether they are suitable if they are in English, but that does not mean that sources in other languages, such as Icelandic, are ruled out.

I think it is only fair to warn you that if Tómas Davíð is not notable by Wikipedia's criteria then any effort spent changing the article in an attempt to keep it is likely to fail. It is very common, when an article is made for promotional purposes by someone unused to Wikipedia's ways and is then considered for deletion, for the author of the article to concentrate on "what is wrong with how the article is written? How can it be changed to make it acceptable?" when often the problem is not with the writing of the article, but with the notability of the subject. If the subject is not notable then no amount of rewriting the article will make it notable. I am not prejudging this case, and if suitable sources can be produced I shall be delighted to accept the article. However, at present I am very firmly of the impression that he is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Apart from the failure of the article to cite suitable sources, I have myself spent a considerable amount of time searching for information about Tómas Davíð. I have looked at numerous web pages, both in Icelandic and in English. The vast majority of them are clearly about other people called Tómas Davíð. I found no independent sources about this Tómas Davíð at all. In fact pages which were certainly or very probably about him were restricted to self-published material such as social networking sites, e.g. this and this. If anything better exists then I shall be pleased to see it.

I have put some time and thought into trying to answer your request for help. I hope it is of some use to you. Please feel very welcome to ask again if you have any more questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Zhang He (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for all your work hunting for info on this, and for your usual patience with the new editor. Shame that this one turned out to be a timewaster, and I hope that doesn't put you off continuing your excellent work. MuffledThud (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did actually try quite hard to be constructive and helpful to an editor who I thought was sincere but misguided, and yes it was rather disheartening to realise I had been wasting my time on a hoaxer. However, I still believe that such wasted time is made up for by the times when a useful result is achieved. The occasional words of encouragement such as yours are appreciated. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is insulting.. if you wanted reliable sources of the highly known musician who goes mostly undi tósóngli merlódíus or, in fact the name- sigur rós! then you should have said so in the first place instead of wanting to delete so soon.. maybe our lack of english knowlidge made this more difficault for you and i am sorry for that but there is really nothing i can do about wikipedia's staff's ignorance.. and agin you have misunderstood! the page is not for promotion, even though it is made for people to read when the attraction is coming higher over the world tour, the page is made for informational purposes only! just to project information on this encyclopedia, everyone wants this information! all the co-laborers like sigur ros are not nearly as popular as tósóngli in the countries we work in! please try to at least concider there are more countries in this world with people who live in this world other than only USA! and they even have more cultural values than hamburgers.

(talk) 07:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did search thoroughly for "Tósóngli Melódíus" as well as for "Tómas Davíð", and found no evidence of substantial independent coverage. I have no idea at all why you assume I am from the USA. To start a post with "this is insulting" and finish with such a remark about hamburgers shows an interesting kind of irony. Your remarks do not address the issues which led to deletion at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh, well then sorry for wasting your time! i assume youre from amerika because otherwise you would be a listener of the page you deleted.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.43.141 (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the other contr. is a different person. I am not me the person who changed the notice. Thank you for your attention!--Caragea Florina (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if the anonymous editor who removed the speedy deletion tag was not you: it certainly looked as though it was. If this was a mistake it was caused by difficulty in distinguishing genuine editing by an anonymous editor who has no recent editing history from the behaviour of an editor of an editor who had logged out to give the impression of being someone else, not lack of attention. Also the fact that the anonymous editor is editing from Rumania, and you are Rumanian, encouraged this impression. There was certainly no lack of attention: I checked quite carefully. Sorry again if I made a mistake, but unfortunately there is a lot of dishonesty around, and I made a judgement as to what looked most likely. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's easy to say sorry, but you must repair the error pls. If somebody from Romania erased the notice, maybe with some reasons, you must respect the decision and the rules. Pls delete the notice and let the others contr. to help me with this article. I will appreciate your help and your honesty.--Caragea Florina (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "it's easy to say sorry" is often used as a way of dismissing an apology: I hope that is not how you meant it. I once restored the tag which looked as though it was removed by the author of the article. Since then the tag has been removed and restored again. I will assume you are acting in good faith and remove the tag again, but I should warn you that I think the article should still be deleted for other reasons, and very likely will be. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must thank you for honesty. I will try to translate from spanish. Is not easy, but I can put some links to improve the article. Is not a crime to help somebody, and for me is not a crime to help my brother. Have a god day from Montreal.--Caragea Florina (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged .sic for deletion under WP:CSD#A7. i have declined the speedy. it is my view that top-level internet domains are sufficiently significant, when accepted by ICANN, to avoid A7 deletion, and may be inherently notable. DES ^(talk) 21:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on reflection I agree. The version of the article that I found contained an element of spam, and although I removed it I allowed the memory of it to colour my judgement of the article. Thank you for correcting my mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James ~

We are wondering why you have removed links to the Unified Outreach and Precious Casting sites as "unverifiable"? The 2010 MAC Fashion House Youth Expose was January 23, 2010. Verifiable via www.brownpapertickets.com, organized and directed by David Toledo under the Unified Outreach/Precious Casting non-profit group.

We appreciate you efforts to keep Wikipedia clutter free and hope that this clarifies the accuracy of the link. If you have questions feel free to contact Unified Outreach at 206-333-8118.

Our thanks,

UO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyslas (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The fact that you give a phone number of Unified Outreach suggests that you are editing on behalf of an organisation. I see that some of the links added to the article David Toledo (Artist) were to pages of Unified Outreach's website, and that in the above message you mention that Toledo has done work in connection with Unified Outreach. This strongly suggests that at best you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing in connection with this article, and at worst that the article has been created for the purpose of promotion. I very strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, and also the policy that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion.
2. I did not remove any links as "unverifiable", and I am not sure why you think I did. To begin with I thought that you must have confused me with someone else, but there is no record of anyone removing links from the article and giving lack of verifiability as a reason. I have reread the edit summaries that I gave when I removed references, and I do not understand what is unclear about them. For example, for one edit I gave the summary "Removing "references" none of which supports the assertions to which they were attached - most of them were just links to pages about or YouTube videos of people/things mentioned in the article.". The first of the references is attached to the statement "David belonged to a loose group of friends that rode dirt bikes in the area and called themselves the “Outsiders,” after the book by S.E. Hinton", so the reference should be to a source which confirms that the statement is true: i.e. a source which tells us that Toledo belonged to a group of friends that called themselves the "Outsiders" after a book by S.E. Hinton. That is what a "reference" means. In fact it was just a link to the front page of S.E. Hinton's web site: the page does not mention Toledo, let alone that he belonged to a group that called themselves the "Outsiders". In other words it was not a reference, but just a link to a page concerning someone who was mentioned in passing in the article, which is what my edit summary said. Exactly similar considerations apply to all of the other links which I removed in that edit.

JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting good links such as www.unifiedoutreach.com? You state that there is no reference to David Toledo, yet if you visit the "contact us" page you will see that he is listed as staff; having designed most of the arts programs and acting as instructor for a variety of programs.

The Unified Outreach site also references Precious Casting. It is easy to deduce that if David Toledo is active in the arts programs at Unified Outreach (and Precious Casting is part of that program), then David Toledo is most likely active in that as well.

This is just one example of how you have removed previously verified information without doing the proper investigative work. I am sure this was a small oversight, but it is very important that as an editor that you are 100% accurate in your removals.

Thank you,

DOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docoofthemix (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reference to a web page needs to be a reference to a web page which supports the statement to which the reference is attached. It is not enough to give a reference to a page which has a link to another page which contains information from which it is possible to deduce the statement to which the reference is attached. Also it is not sufficient to give a reference to something which suggests that the statement given is "most likely" true. You are mistaken in thinking that "this was a small oversight": it was quite deliberate, and entirely in line with the standards required for referencing of Wikipedia articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry James I just read your note saying that you were not the one removing links. You inquire as to the relationship between David, Myself, and the posts and imply that I should not be making updates because I know David personally. I find this confusing; as I have first hand knowledge of David's history and current activities I am best to update the site.

It was not me who originally designed the site; David is in fact an established artist in a variety of mediums who deserves to have his information readily available.

I am curious as to your targeting of the site? Are you personally aquinted with Mr. Toledo? Did he do something that deserves this attack?

If not, I ask you to please stop your assault; with all that is going on in the world today isn't there more important things that we could do than go back and forth on this issue? If there is no harm being done, can't we just live and let live?

Thank you,

DOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docoofthemix (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that I did not remove links: I said that I did not remove the links because they were "unverifiable".

You refer to "attack" and "assault". Unfortunately it is common for editors new to Wikipedia to view proposals to delete articles as personal attacks. Outsiders often confuse "anyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia" with "anyone is welcome to contribute anything they like to Wikipedia", which is not the case: we have standards and criteria for acceptance of articles, and at present it seems to me that this article does not satisfy those criteria. This is purely a judgement about the quality of the article, and is not at all personal.

You say that I "inquire as to the relationship between" David Toledo and you, and "and imply that [you] should not be making updates because [you] know David personally". I am not aware of making any such enquiry: if I have done so perhaps you can remind me where I did so. Otherwise the only thing I can think of which this can possibly refer to is the fact that I suggested that Joshyslas might have a conflict of interest. If you are the same person as Joshyslas then please say so, and explain why you have used two accounts. If you have a legitimate reason for doing so then that is fine, so long as you explain it. If, however, people get the impression that you are using two accounts with the intention of being deceptive, then this is likely to cause them to take a highly critical line towards you: I suggest that you read Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry to see why. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused why you are deleting links that are good and that reflect the subjects projects and affiliations?

It does seem like you are ignoring substantive facts that establish notoriety of the subject.

It would appear to most that are viewing this page that you have embarked down a road which your pride is unwilling to allow you to deter from.

You delete links and change information and then say you want to discuss if the article should remain, sighting lack of content or authenticity. Don't you think you should have left the links so that those involved in the discussion could see for themselves?

It is not fair for you to delete information and then tell people to discuss why there is no information. I'm sure it was not your intention to come across as being deceitful but there is something here that smells fishy.--Joshyslas (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)JoshYslas[reply]

Also, there seems to be several pages that you have requested deletion of. And strangely enough the same people that agree to delete this article agree to delete the others. Do you and specific other users work as a team? There is no neutral discussion when you have an "attack group" working together to spam discussions with your views.

We ask only that if you really have a personal vendetta against David Toledo that you be the bigger man and let it go.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyslas (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read my comments and the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines on notability and reliable sources. As for your accusations of bad faith, I have done my best to reassure you. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the time you took to review my article.I am new to Wikipedia and I have many things to learn. I am finally thinking of writing the contents of the article to another article (BurnAware Technologies). I request you to place a speedy deletion tag in it so that it gets deleted. Thanking you. Rishabhchandan (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2010 (ISD)

"I am new to Wikipedia" seems a surprising statement by someone who has been editing since November 2008. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea how important this article is! This is part of our GCSE coursework, involving coding! I used Wikipedia Markup for the coding bit and Pobble for the actual coursework bit! As for the importance, it is giving readers important information, much like The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The Star (all online newspapers, would you like me to go on?)

Please rethink about deleting the Pobble article! --Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with you if you intended this to be part of your GCSE coursework. However, Wikipedia does not accept articles about just anything: subjects have to satisfy our notability criteria, which I am afraid this one doesn't. I suggest you should read the notability guideline to see what is required. Even if the article is "giving readers important information", Wikipedia does not give new information, but only serves as a database of information which has already been given significant coverage. (I am also doubtful about the appropriateness of the word "important".) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to complain about the deletion of User:Micky 1234567890123/Pobble. This is a sub-page of my userpage and I have no intentions of re-posting it to the main Wikipedia. To my understanding, sub-pages of users like the one you placed a Speedy Deletion tag to, are the property of the user, are they not? Please just leave my userpage alone! --Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia pages are the property of individual users. User pages are provided for use in connection with working on the encyclopedia, not for any purpose a user chooses. It is true that a good deal of leeway is allowed in user space, but in this case it was perfectly clear that you were using this page as a way of getting round deletion of an article, not for working on the encyclopedia. In fact what you wrote above confirms this: "I have no intentions of re-posting it to the main Wikipedia". Wikipedia is not a free web host. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well surely archived talk pages serve the same purpose do they not? And anyway, I read that you can have a user-page with an article in it which is not yet ready for the main Wikipedia. What I mean to write above was "I have no intentions of re-posting it to the main Wikipedia yet". Once the newsletter gains a bit more interest and the article is better written, then I will consider posting it. Can you please revert the deletion? --Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article which is not yet ready for main space is quite different from an article which will never be ready for main space because it is on a non-notable subject. Consequently, even if you are sincere in saying that you meant you had no intention of posting it "yet", it is still not suitable for userfication. In addition, your statement "I would like to keep the work, even though it does not meet Wikipedias ^stupid notability guidelines" does not, on the face of it, tend to suggest that that is what you had in mind. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're just not getting it, are you? I would like to keep the sub-page to edit for when the topic becomes notable, then I don't have to waste my time creating one from scratch when it does (and it will) become notable!!! --Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also highly offended by your quote: "never be ready for main space". You have no right to criticise someone elses project or ambitions, nevertheless their articles. You just try creating an article about a completely new topic in which there is very little information to write about. I know what your gonna say - that previous sentence doesn't give the impression the article is notable etc. etc. but to be honest, I don't care! You will be sorry when your precious "Wikipedia" is feeding from Pobble. You will reference articles to Pobble! Wikipedia will revolve around Pobble! And when that day comes, I will be straight onto this userpage, saying to you - "I-Told-You-So!" --Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually wasted my time writing an answer to the last post but one on this topic and got an edit conflict, but in view of the last post it is clearly not worth posting my answer. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just got a tad caught up in the moment. --Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No! I want to hear your answer! I repeat: "I am also highly offended by your quote: "never be ready for main space". You have no right to criticise someone elses project or ambitions, nevertheless their articles." --Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything new comes up on this I will consider whether to make a new response. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quitting Wikipedia. This is clearly not the welcoming community I had thought it had. You criticise less experienced editors for their mistakes, and then don't tell them how to fix those problems! Well that is... IT!!! I quit, never to return! All thanks to you! :) >:-( Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for contributing to the article and for clearing up some of the old/dead references (I have to admit I reconstructed this pretty sloppily from parts of an older article that had been userfied). I have two things I would like your perspective on, the first you removed a reference (which I didn't add) to a newspaper article, I feel the reference is important but I'm wondering why you removed it (the article was in The Australian Newspaper and was different to the review which is listed online). The other point I wanted clarification on was the removal of one blog in particular, a Triple J Home & Hosed blog - I understand that 'blogs' as a concept are seen as unreliable, but in this particular case it's a program blog from the national broadcaster, it's part of the ABC's content in Australia and was being used to verify a claim made in the sentence - under that circumstance is it still inappropriate or should I replace it? Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, and I have now restored both the references. I am guilty of removing the newspaper reference hastily without checking carefully enough: the reference tag contained a link to a Wikipedia article as well as the actual citation to the newspaper, and I saw it as just a reference to the Wikipedia article. As for the blog, I am aware that some perfectly respectable sources call themselves "blogs", but this post looked at a glance like an open posting by a member of the public ("Posted by Dom" suggests an anonymous person's user name, rather than a respectable journalist's byline). Closer examination shows that it is, in fact, a reliable source.

Sorry about this, and thanks for pointing it out to me. Incidentally, for future reference, you can make life easier when you make posts like this to talk pages by giving slightly more specific information. First of all, you didn't say what article was involved, so I had to look back at edit histories to find out. Secondly, I had to search through my past edits to find which particular references you were referring to. This time it only added a couple of minutes to the time it took me, and was not a big deal, but sometimes details like this can make a big difference. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would have liked deleting this entry, drawn empty one only and then I created it sometime. Excuse me for the nuisances.--195.128.232.8 (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a while to work out what you meant. I assume you are referring to Category:MTE-Motim footballers, and that you are saying that you are Canysp (the creator of the category), and that you want the category deleted. I have tagged it for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, the reason the text became invisible is that it was interpreted as an instruction to add this talk page to the category itself. Try putting a colon at the start of the brackets, so: Category:MTE-Motim footballers. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised myself immediately after my edit what the cause of the problem was, but I didn't know what the solution was. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, go to the source (it's the link of a greek newspaper) Avgi.gr. At the bottom of the page it's clearly stated in greek that "the product it's available without restrictions, on the condition that you refer to the source, for non-commercial purposes. There is a link for the license 3.0 CC. Now, for the "editwar" look better in the history who is trying desperately to find excuses to delete the picture just because it doesn't suit with his "style" (or just because he might be racist). The picture represents perfectly that the term "PIIGS" is widely used. So it's a historical record that was used also by the people and not only by some lobbies of journalists. Yion (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand at all. In this edit I expressly explained that the problem was that Wikipedia cannot accept images licensed only for non-commercial use, and yet the above post does not address that at all. I do not know whether the person who originally tagged the image for deletion did so because it didn't suit his style, nor whether it was for racist reasons, but I do know that even if either of those is true it does not alter the fact that the image is licensed under terms which are incompatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses which English Wikipedia uses. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are most certainly correct. There are two conflicting actions that took place: the removal of the speedy deletion tag, and the good-faith blanking of the article. In retrospect, it may have been better for me to look back through the previous revisions of the page, and I would have seen that he/she was the sole author. I definitely agree with you; when using Huggle, it's way too easy to see a superfluous edit and revert it without ever looking back into the revision history and see where that edit came from. If you read the archives of my talk pages, you'll see that this definitely isn't the first time I've unknowingly bitten someone, and I really do hope to, well, stop.

(And, for the record, I had this all typed out before you reverted your edit to my talk page; it's the only reason I'm posting it here).

Thank you so much for your feedback and for mentioning it. Only through a supportive community that provides you with feedback can we all learn to be better editors, and contribute to the health of Wikipedia. Cheers! ~SpK 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the reason I reverted was that I realised your warning was not for removing the speedy tag, but for blanking the page, which I think is not quite so clearly undesirable, but debatable. However, it shows that I too am capable of acting hastily without checking carefully enough even when I am warning another editor about doing exactly that, which is rather humbling. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The profile on Jonathan Sandys is NOT spam and it is not promoting a product or person. The profile is unbias and the reason I feel it should be included, (as do others), is because Jonathan Sandys is a notable figure due to the fact that he is continuing the legacy of his great-grandfather, Sir Winston Churchill. At NO point have I made reference to any requests for business or donations. At NO point have I digressed from the subject.

The profile is a biography of Jonathan Sandys and is going to be expanded. I am continuing to add further information relating to Jonathan's childhood and some of the stories his father, (Churchill's grandson, Julian Sandys), and his great-aunt Mary Soames have told him over the years.

Please will you contact me urgently if you really feel that this is spam or an advert. I would like this posted correctly and I followed the guidelines to the letter. I don't understand why you are seeking to delete this.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara Sandys (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you posted a copy of the same message on your talk page, and I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have added to the page to give background information on Jonathan. As to your comment on notability, I have not mentioned this because of his relationship to Churchill, as you can see from the article, Jonathan is ACTUALLY doing something. Many people have suggested that a Wiki page be created as Jonathan is very active in the cause of education, the profile has been added by me because it was thought that I was the best person to write it. There really is NO bias because I have stated NO opinion on anything. I have reported the facts as they have been presented. I have followed several designs from Wiki pages of a similar sort and I'm confident that I have stayed within the guidelines to neither offend people, or pursuade them either way. Politicians have pages, celebrities have pages, why not the President of a foundation dedicated to education. However, if the article were written by someone other than myself, would you then accept it?

Respectfully. Thank you

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

Thank you so much for the time you have given to changing the profile. I am very grateful. Bless you!

{Unsigned2|02:40, 5 March 2010|Sara Sandys}}

The answer to your question "However, if the article were written by someone other than myself, would you then accept it?" is no. The point is not "Someone with a connection to the subject of the article wrote it, so the article is unacceptable. It is "Someone with a connection to the subject of the article wrote it, with the result that they did not see the subject in the same objective light as an outsider would. This means that they have failed to see the lack of notability of the subject, and the essentially promotional tone and character of the article". In other words if someone with a close connection to a subject writes an article on that subject there is a greater likelihood that the article will finish up with certain faults, but those faults would have been equally unacceptable whoever had written the article. Editors with a conflict of interest are discouraged from editing because of this likelihood of a (very often unintentional) lack of objectivity, but if an article is perfectly good by other standards who wrote it is not a consideration in whether to delete it or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers on this, James - it's one of the many finer details about WP that one must learn as we go. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Husein Alicajic. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Husein Alicajic. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear James B. Watson,

You had put a notice on Paul D. Marks' Wikipedia entry. Everything stated on that page is true. Paul is a writer of short fiction who has been published in many places over several years with an ongoing career. We think that qualifies him under the notable category (if that's the correct term). Following are some of the web references to his work that we found in a quick search under the terms "Paul D. Marks" and there are others as well as many references that are not on the web. He has won or placed for several awards and is an ongoing writer. You might need to search "Marks" on the pages below to find the reference to him.-- Thank you.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/BookSearch/results.asp?ATH=Paul+D.+Marks http://topmysteries.com/News.html http://overmydeadbody.com/sunblvd.htm http://www.jasonsanford.com/jason/2010/01/reader-nominations-for-2010-million-writers-award/comments/page/2/ http://la-noir.blogspot.com/ http://www.weber.edu/WSUImages/weberjournal/JournalPDF%27s/FallIssue09.pdf http://www.philsp.com/homeville/msf/s149.htm -- different entries from the philsp one below http://www.philsp.com/homeville/FMI/s1601.htm http://www.amazon.com/Landmarked-Murder-Gay-Degani/dp/1929976372/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267870061&sr=8-2 http://www.amazon.com/Murder-Sunset-Boulevard-Rochelle-Majer/dp/1929976194/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267870087&sr=1-1 http://www.crimestalkers.com/book_reviews.html http://www.jandysbooks.com/mystery/snstblvd.html http://www.authordarrelljames.com/wst_page5.html http://www.amazon.com/Murder-Across-Map-al-Halloway/dp/1929976348/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267870444&sr=8-1 http://www.fmam.biz/dime.shtml http://www.amazon.com/Dime-Babs-Lakey/dp/0974960861/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267870630&sr=8-1

--SpaceOdyssey (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you for informing me: I appreciate that courtesy. However, "Everything stated on that page is true" is not sufficient: Wikipedia does not indiscriminately give any information which is true, but only information which satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria. You may like to read Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, which discusses the distinction. More important, however, are Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I suggest reading at least the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for notability of authors.

As far as the links you provided above go, none of them constitutes significant coverage in reliable independent sources, nor even comes remotely near to doing so. Consequently they do not establish notability. What is more, even what the article says does not come anywhere near suggesting satisfying the guideline for authors. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Can you please tell us specifically what we would have to do, include, cite, etc., in order for this article on Paul D. Marks to meet the criteria. We have looked at the links you provided and they seem rather subjective, especially as we have seen many, many articles on Wikipedia that don't seem to meet the criteria you suggest. We want to do things right but we're also frustrated with your comments and responses. So we would appreciate it if you tell us point by point what we have to do to qualify this article for inclusion as well as what your credentials are in terms of being an editor of either Wikipedia or anything else? Are you simply a self-appointed arbiter? What in your background gives you the expertise to make these decisions? We're not trying to be argumentative, but we feel we have a right to know as you are passing judgment on us. Thank you.--SpaceOdyssey (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not sure in what way you mean that the links "seem rather subjective". Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability is not a policy or official guideline, but attempts to explain a point which is often not fully understood by people new to editing Wikipedia. Personally I think it does a good job of doing so, but if you found it unhelpful, sorry. The other two links are to official Wikipedia guidelines, and describe the approach that Wikipedia takes to the question of notability. Another relevant page which I did not link to above is the policy on reliable sources.
2. I am not "passing judgment" on you. I have looked at the evidence provided for notability the subject of an article, and attempted to assess them against Wikipedia's notability criteria. I have explained my assessment. Anyone else is free to examine the same evidence and assess it, and to express their agreement or disagreement with my assessment if they choose to.
3. I am no more and no less "self appointed" than anyone else. Nor am I an "arbiter": I have, as I have indicated above, expressed a judgement which forms the starting point of a discussion, at the end of which an administrator will make a decision as to the force of any arguments on both sides. That is how an "article for deletion" discussion works. I have, however, been active on Wikipedia for over three and a half years and have made over 14 thousand edits in that time. A large proportion of my work here has been concerned with the assessment of new articles. Consequently I have a fairly substantial amount of experience of how Wikipedia works and what its policies and guidelines are. On the basis of that experience I have spent a significant amount of time reading your posts to me, checking the references you provided, and explaining my impressions. I hope this is of help to you in understanding the way Wikipedia works.
4. The argument that there are other articles on Wikipedia which don't seem to satisfy the criteria will on the face of it seem reasonable to a newcomer: it did to me when I was new to Wikipedia. However, with experience it becomes apparent that this is not relevant. Firstly, it may well be that some of the articles you refer to do satisfy the notability criteria better than the one we are considering, even if you do not immediately see why. More importantly, though, there certainly are many articles on Wikipedia which don't satisfy the criteria, and which therefore should be deleted. Many of them will be deleted once somebody gets round to them. We cannot deal with every problem at once: this does not mean that we should not deal with as many as we can. Obviously someone with little experience of Wikipedia will be likely to think that what already exists is a guide to what is acceptable, but unfortunately this is not entirely so.
5. The fact that you use "us" and "we" suggests that you may be editing from a shared account. For reasons of copyright accountability Wikipedia's policy is that an account is for an individual user. If this is a shared account then you must stop sharing it: please have one account each.
6. Now for the essential point, I think, of your post above, namely "Can you please tell us specifically what we would have to do, include, cite, etc., in order for this article on Paul D. Marks to meet the criteria". If the subject is notable but you haven't shown that he is then yes "what can I do to the article to demonstrate notability" is the right question, and I shall say a little more about that in a minute. However, before even asking that question you should consider the more fundamental question "is the subject notable?" Very many people come to Wikipedia specifically for the purpose of creating an article on a particular subject which they wish to publicise. Since their whole focus is on getting publicity for their subject they tend to concentrate on "what is it about the article which is unacceptable", and do not consider "what is it about the subject of the article which is unacceptable". If Paul D. Marks does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria then nothing you do to the article will alter that, and any attempt to do so will be a waste of time. If, however, Paul D. Marks does satisfy those criteria, then the answer is (a) read again the notability guidelines and see in what way he satisfies the criteria, so you know exactly what you need to show, and (b) read the policies on reliable sources and verifiability so that you know how to show it.
7. As I have already indicated, I have spent a significant amount of time trying to help. I hope my efforts have been some use to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

james - would appreciate it if you would not edit my wiki page further. thanks. jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.99.138 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have saved me some time if you had told me what article you were referring to. I assume you mean Jamie Colby. Please note that this is not "your" page: individual editors do not own Wikipedia articles, and no editor has the right to instruct another editor not to edit a particular article. The edits you have made have quite unambiguously been promotional in nature, and, since Wikipedia's policy is that Wikipedia is not used for promotion I certainly shall continue to take steps to stop this use. Your use of the expression "my wiki page", your putting "jamie" at the end of the above post, and your editing from an IP address allocated to Fox News Channel encourage me to think you may be Jamie Colby. If so then you have a conflict of interest with respect to this article, and Wikipedia strongly discourages editing by an editor with a conflict of interest. I suggest you read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on Ownership of articles, using Wikipedia for promotion, and Conflict of interest.

There's no need to tag an article for speedy deletion if it's already been blanked for evaluation at WP:CP. Regards, Theleftorium 20:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It wasn't obvious to me that the notice meant it was awaiting evaluation at WP:CP. Thanks for telling me. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) Theleftorium 20:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Rms125a@hotmail.com's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Rms125a@hotmail.com's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In this one the text I checked was not a verbatum copy, and some of the other text like the vision, should be a direct copy, with attribution. With copyright violations on significant topic (or promotions which are often combined) you can delete the big chunks of text and leave a stub behind. Also I find that even though it is a copy, it is often made by the copyright holder, just with no proof, anyway this kind of text should be deleted too if no OTRS is forthcoming. Thanks for asking. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you say, and up to a point I agree. I have removed all the text which I have been able to trace to specific copyright sources. This has reduced the length of the text (excluding section headings, external links section, etc) from about 1600 words to about 320. It is true that copies are often made by the copyright owner, but I am confident that is not the case on this occasion. In any case, even if the copyright issue were dealt with by that, the text was so blatantly promotional that I find it surprising that you declined the {{db-spam}}. Anyway, I'll see how the article fares now. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will often decline spam nominations if it is not 100% spam, if 95% of text can be taken out instead, that is a better outcome. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James,

I have opened an account with wikipedia. I was the individual who made the changes on Gay Mafia. I happen to be the resource of the information and I know what I know, because I watched it first hand, was around it, basically, I lived it and still deal with it. And yes, I am gay and breaking ranks against my own. But exploitation is exploitation, and for 17yrs I have been waging a private war against them and noone believed me until the group finally went after parts of my extended family and now they are under protection. So I ask you, What is your idea of a verifiable source? The few officials who are working on it get all their information from me so I am the credible expert on the subject. I finally put my direct knowledge up on the pages I did and their connections because only through the awareness of this by our whole society can an abhorent exploitation be stopped. A minority community that forever faced discrimination, and been marginalized and ignored by authorities, police, and the public at large, sounds like a perfect condition for exploitation. It was and is, and has and is being exploited by a group that calles themselves the gay mafia, whos general lackeys are gay and some straight guys, but their top guy in each city or area claims to be gay but has sex with men and women. The groups connection is with the chicago mob syndicate, and so on. All is first hand knowledge, first hand observation, first hand conversations, names, places, groups etc.. The call is yours. Let the world know a hidden dirty secret that authorities dont want to admit because it was their sexual orientation discriminatory policies that allowed it to gain power and spread, and the victims never come forward because they are either still being victimized, blackmailed, dead, or terrified. This last year they kidnapped my partner and when I refused to backdown, they did horrible things him that hospitalized him, and months later after torn abdominals from the inside and broken bones healed, he is so terrified still he wont tell anyone what happened, not officials, friends, or even me. He is far away from me now and wont even associate. Its up to you....keep the U.S.'s dirty little secret? Or let it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riseofthephoenix2101 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not accept "I know, because I was there, so you can take my word for it" as justification for inclusion of material. There are several reasons for this; probably the most obvious is the fact that anyone at all can edit Wikipedia and claim to have first hand knowledge, so the claim is not reliable. The Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources and the verifiability policy specify what is required by way of sources.
2. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Our policy is to have information only on subjects which have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the source. If you can show existing published sources which have given prominent coverage to the statements you make then that will be justification for incorporating them into the article. However, the general character of your comments suggests that you want to incorporate this information precisely because it has not received publicity, and you think it should. If what you have written is true then I sympathise with you 100% in trying to get it publicised, but Wikipedia is not the right place to do it. There are numerous other places on the internet which allow fairly open use to publicise information or opinions, but this is not one of them. You may like to read Wikipedia's notability guideline, and also the policy on what Wikipedia is not, particularly the section on not being a means of promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again:

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And once again:

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The discussion we had at this this AFD kept me thinking and kept me on my toes, and I appreciate this acknowledgement of the awards. Happy editing, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and I tend, I find, to think along different lines, Michael: I am much closer to being a deletionist than you. However, I am always willing to be proved wrong, and if a subject does seem to be suitable for an article I am certainly glad to accept it - after all, that is what we are here for. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best foods have a little savory, a little salt, a litle sweet, a litle bitter... all together to make something worth eating. Decent discussions help us all hone our skills... so again, thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give up trying to put up information on Wikipedia concerning this particular academic thesis, as you won't/can't accept any information from either author (the most authoritative source), or the publisher -- myself. And I can't even be bothered to find someone else to do it for me, instead. (Which of course is the obvious way to get round your 'no self-promotion' rules.)

It just really isn't worth it. You don't seem to have any mechanism in place to differentiate academic research from Viagra spam -- if it's presented to you by the author.

[Oh, and you're now accusing me of vandalism because I deleted all information from a page I created myself -- but which you don't want to accept.]

Have you any real mechanism for deleting pages you obviously can't be bothered with?

Please note: I've been using Wikipedia since the month it was created (as both editor and reader), and you've now deleted my personal page so many times it is no longer funny.

"RabCNesbitt" [a.k.a. MartinWheeler]

MartinWheeler (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been proudly referred to: http://rubenerd.com/wikipedia-problems/

http://rubenerd.com/rescuing-wikipedia-part-two/ Keep up the excellent zeal! --Zor2711 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]