User talk:JBW

Tionna T. Smalls

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

Replied.

Question about a deleted article

Hello, I was working on some research and found that you just recently deleted something that I felt was very helpful. It was an article called "To Shin Do". The reasons for the deletion said (this is an article without independent sources that fails to say why this is a notable martial art). I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. I would like to try to help get something on Wikipedia about this martial arts. It's become a very popular form of martial arts in America. So I want to help find sources so the topic can be added to Wikipedia. Can you give me a couple examples of what types of sources would be helpful to include? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmonie (talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I can find no trace of a deleted article with the title To Shin Do. Perhaps you have made a mistake in the title.
2. If I did delete an article with the words you quote in the deletion log then they will not have been my words. It will have been an article which was proposed for deletion, and the wording will have been those of the person making the proposal. Anyone could then have contested that proposal. After a week in which nobody had contested the proposal, I will have had a look over the article to check that the proposal was not an unreasonable one, and, provided it wasn't, I will have deleted it.
3. I can't comment on the particular article you are referring to, as I don't know what article it was, but I do remember deleting a number of articles on the general topic. As far as I recall none of them showed that their particular sub-branch of martial arts was significant. Some or all of them appeared to be about minor fringe branches of schools of martial arts, and it had been suggested for some or all of them that the articles were written by people involved in order to promote their fringe schools. What I saw, both in the articles and in quick web searches, was entirely consistent with that suggestion. As I have already indicated, I am not able to say whether that was the case with the article you have in mind.
4. For an indication as to what sort of evidence of notability is required for a Wikipedia article, see the notability guidelines and the guideline on reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Checked JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Taztouzi is back again

This time using the name Agenceluxe. He's edited Mister World 2010[1], Manhunt International 2010[2], Mister International 2010 [3], and Mohammed Al Maiman, which he created without misinformation and then changed after a couple of weeks [4]. John KB submitted the SPI request:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agenceluxe I'm assuming I can't tag the Al Maiman article for speedy deletion until Agenceluxe is officially declared a sock. Susfele (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you stalking me?!!1!

That's the second tab I've had to close because you've finished something I've started! At this rate I'll be able to down tools and relax ;-) TFOWR 09:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a question of "great minds think alike", I reckon. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dialog Axiata

Thanks for doing the merge & move along with the deletions. Top Jim (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For your intervention. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of a page?

Hello James.

• 13:25, October 11, 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Robert J Rubinstein" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

I Created the page Robert J Rubinstein, and seen that it has been deleted as it is seen as SPAM. Robert J Rubinstein's organization is a non profit organization. He organizes conferences around the world speaking about Sustainability. He has became world famous teaching people on this subject.

Please advise

Regards,

Stephen Cassidy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen j Cassidy (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether Rubinstein's organisation is a non profit organisation or not is irrelevant. The article was unambiguous promotion of him and his work, and Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion. If you sincerely can't see that this article was promotional, then my guess is that one or both of the following applies: (1) You are closely involved with the subject, so much so that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. "Robert has been able to make significant breakthrough with respect to consciousness raising", for example, is at best an expression of personal opinion, and at worst an attempt to promote. (2) You work in advertising, marketing, or "public relations", and are so used to marketing prose that you have become desensitised to it, and are unaware of it. If neither of those two applies then I can only suggest that editing Wikipedia articles is not going to be your forte, as you lack the ability to take an objective view. As for "He has became world famous", if you can provide reliable sources independent of Rubinstein which give significant coverage of him, then a Wikipedia article on him will be fine (though not, of course, if it is written in a promotional manner). However, I have searched, and failed to find any such sources. I also see that you have re-created the article, and it has been deleted again, this time because another administrator determined that it was a copyright infringement. I recommend being more careful: if you continue this way you may eventually be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dungeon Sea Article deletion

13:24, 11 October 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Dungeon Sea Online" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Why did you delete the page?

Which part of it was advertising? I fixed the article and it was still deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanm07 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly written to promote its subject. It contained such language as "DSO has an excellent high standard of support with all problems being resolved within a month". It was largely written in the first person (e.g. "our website"). It gave detailed information clearly aimed at people who would go on to use "Dungeon Sea Online", not at people wishing simply to read an objective account in an encyclopaedia article. If you sincerely can't see that this article was promotional, then my guess is that you are closely involved with the subject, so much so that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read it after we made the edits you would have saw that we rewrote that section and removed most of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanm07 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment was based purely on the final version, immediately before deletion. I had a copy of it in front of me as I wrote the above comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The final version (which I only read after it was deleted) still included references to "our website": Players who use a "Proxy" to access our website, forum or game will be automatically banned if caught. TFOWR 13:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That was a copy of the rules from the game..

Are we allowed to rewrite the article from scratch? Seanm07 (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but before you do so you should be aware of some of Wikipedia's guidelines, otherwise you may find yourself spending time writing the article again, only to see it deleted again, which will no doubt be very frustrating. It is not clear to me that the subject Wikipedia's notability criteria. Check the notability guidelines before doing anything else. If the subject does not satisfy those guidelines then you will be better off forgetting it, and spending your time on something else. If, however, you decide it does satisfy the notability guidelines then check the guideline on reliable sources to see what evidence you need to show that it does. Also, including copies of information from elsewhere (such as the rules of the game) almost certainly means a copyright infringement, which could be enough to get the article deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB & WP:RED

Regarding this edit and the associated comment, Removing entries not linking to articles, please read WP:MOSDAB & WP:RED.

As it happens, you have done the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.

Please note that in certain circumstances it is not only acceptable, but it is encouraged to place red links.

If you want more information, please feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that full well. However, "Removing entries not linking to articles" is quicker to type than "Removing entries not linking to articles and for which none of the recognised exceptions which might justify their inclusion apply" (or something equivalent). JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

True. But had you done so, I wouldn't be wasting both my time and yours. C'est la vie. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

General question

hello, i am just wondering why a few things i have updated have been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymington2010 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean Jason Brookes and Alex Easton.. If so, the reason, as stated in the deletion log, is that they did not "not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Have a look WP:GNG and WP:BIO to see what is required. The messages placed on your talk page by the editors who tagged the articles for deletion also give more information. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of my WP page "Ken Costello"

Hello James, I am trying in vain to upload a perfectly honest and verified article regarding the life and times of a fairly well known British motor racing engineer called Ken Costello. Everytime I have tried to do this, someone takes it off WikiPedia stating it is advertising (what, I have no idea - they wont tell me), its "unambiguous" (meaning?) and now yourself telling me I might be blocked from ever uploading anything to WP again.

I find this rather unfiar. Ken Costello is a friend of mine of 5 years and well desrives his place in WP as an old, but very well respected man. The gentleman who wrote the article for me to upload is in fact a well known television journalist and has known Ken for over 40 years. There is NOTHING in the article that is contentious - everything is correct and verifiable.

I have one last copy of the text, heavily edited and with anything even REMOTELY looking like advertising (which it never was), or violating copyright (which it never was) has been removed.

I would appreciate if you let this version go live and you take the controls of editing it.

Be very pleased to hear from you soon

Kind regards Lawrence Wood.

PS: My website, www.mgcostello.com, will verify Ken's history and the nature of the cars he built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolwood (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The last version of the article was clearly very closely modelled on http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Ken-Costello-MGB-V8-1.htm. That page carries the notice "© 2010 British V8™ All rights reserved". If, contrary to that notice, the copyright owner has in fact released copyright, the message on your talk page tells you what to do about it. I was not the administrator who deleted the first version as promotional, but I have seen it, and I do agree with the admin who did so. The article recounted in glowing terms how wonderful Costello was. It was not written in the detached, objective, tone that is suitable for an encyclopaedia article. If you sincerely can't see that, then probably you are so closely involved with the subject that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. The fact that you describe yourself as a friend of Costello, and say that the article was written for you someone else who knows Costello tends to confirm this. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Userspace drafts

Hi. You didn't need to add NOINDEX to the Bitcoin draft article - the {{userspace draft}} template does that automatically. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Milky Waif

Could you please reduce the protection of The Milky Waif to semi, I think that you meant it. Thanks Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you protect Pup on a Picnic, per before. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Both done. Thanks for pointing them out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not attempt to unblock CU-blocked ranges

From what I can see from your block log and User talk:71.178.49.227, it looks as though you attempted to unblock half of a range blocked by User:MuZemike with the {{checkuserblock}} template. Do not, ever, attempt to unblock these ranges without first consulting a checkuser. Fortunately what you attempted to do isn't technically possible, so nothing happened, but if you had managed to undo that block, you could have allowed a serial sockpuppeteer to continue to target the project after we'd already attempted to stop them. The block message provided clear instructions for how users on that range should proceed - requesting an account. This allows checkusers to verify that an account does not belong to the socker before it's created, and the proper response there would have been to refer the user to ACC. Please do not attempt to unblock these ranges again! Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I blocked 71.178.0.0/17 at 10:21, 23 September 2010, and unblocked the same range at 19:33, 30 September 2010. MuZemike's range block on 71.178.0.0/16 was at 22:09, 8 October 2010, 8 days after my unblock. The IP made 6 edits after my unblock and before MuZemike's range block, indicating that my unblock had succeeded. The message I posted to the IP's talk page stated that I was undoing a block I had imposed myself.JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I see - I'm very sorry, I completely misread things. Sorry for the brusque comments. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, I am as guilty as anyone of sometimes acting without checking every detail of the relevant history: there is a limit to how much checking it is reasonable to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry

hey i'm sorry, but why did you revert my edit to the soy page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whommighter (talk • contribs) 08:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A little help

Hi

Thank you for telling me. So then how can I do that as I did with Cambodia to KOC without having to be reverted back by you or someone else?

Answered on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you for your explanation. I am aware now. If not too much, I'll be contacting you for further instructions on Wikipedia.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajaramayana (talk • contribs) 09:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please feel welcome to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Related to this, there's another bit of copy-and-pasting that I'm about to fix up: Angkor Youth Orchestra and Angkor National Youth Orchestra. I've never done this before but it looks easy enough. It would be useful, though, if you were able to check over my post-merge work to make sure I've not messed it up...? TFOWR 10:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The ones I dealt with for this user were quite straightforward, and I decided that just delete and restore the original version was enough. More complex cases, where history merging is needed, can be confusing and error prone, but if you are really careful and don't be tempted to rush then it should be OK. Drop me a message here when you've done it, and I'll have a look. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Since it's the first time I want to take my time and get it right. I'll grab a coffee and do some re-reading first. TFOWR 10:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that all seemed very straightforward! Angkor National Youth Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to have the complete history. Thanks for providing me with a "security blanket" ;-) TFOWR 10:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, as far as I can see. A good job done. I suppose the next thing should be to improve the English. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. There are some stray refs, too. When I get some time I'll go through it and stick the refs where they belong, and copy-edit it. I'm wary of doing too much - I got myself in this mess by copy-editing down to a minimal stub...! TFOWR 11:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing of the article to improve its English. However, I am always wary of doing much of this, for several reasons, including the risk of inadvertently changing the meaning. I feel confident in changing "It is supervised by two musician" by simply adding an "s" at the end, but less sure about "the first establishment of any trace of orchestral classical music". What exactly does it mean? I have written something in coherent English which is probably close in meaning to what the original author intended, but in the past I have had experiences where my attempts have inadvertently changed the meaning to something which is simply wrong. Consequently I tend to make fairly minimal edits in cases of this kind. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi James!
Thank you for the quick revert on my talk page. Though the blocked user was referring to the wrong revert, they inadvertently made a good point. Though I can translate an article in a language I've never studied, I really did struggle with senior high level maths... :-)
Thanks again, --Shirt58 (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the user did make a good point. Their understanding of mathematics is wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to take your word for that. Me not grok strange language with funny counting squiggles. Thanks again. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at January's talk page.
Message added 11:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you James

Cheers for cleaning up all of my messes at the ArbCom election pages; may your trigger finger be ever itchy and your aim true! Skomorokh 14:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page

The page you deleted in relation to Liam Mcdermott that was created by me had no venom in it. Liam McDermott is one of my closest friends and he loved the page! I beg that you will restore it so we can both keep adding to it i.e. Liam Mc Dermott an me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelitoG (talk • contribs) 15:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether your friend approved of the article or not, it was not acceptable as an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia articles about people are not owned either by their authors or by the people that are their subjects. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland move

You moved the page currently at Alice in Wonderland, but did not move its talk page. Could you please? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for telling me. Done now. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely protest the move of this article and its Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 13:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you? Why? In what way do you disagree with the reason I gave for the move? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For one thing it seemed to be an abuse of Administrator powers, since it involved deleting the redirect page to make room for it, which mere mortals cannot do. Normally such an act is done by an admin when requested on the basis of consensus for a move. But that's not central. What's central is that your assertion that Alice in Wonderland is the most common name and therefore must be the article title is not supported by others in the community -- some of whom, like me, are experts on Carrolliana. Please see the Talk page of the article in question. -- Evertype·✆ 16:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael Viney

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

Read JamesBWatson (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Branford Boase Award

Are you sure that there is very little independent coverage of the Branford Boase Award? There's all this in Google News Archive. Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is always disagreement on what constitutes substantial coverage, and I am not going to quarrel with you if you think this does. However, almost every one of the 32 hits is a page with just one passing mention of someone having won the award, or having been shortlisted for it. In only one case is the fact of a person having been nominated for the award the main topic of the item, and in that case it is a local report about a local writer having been nominated. Even in that case, we have an article about the fact that a local writer has been nominated, rather than an article about the award itself. There is not even a single case where the article is primarily about the award, and, as I have already said, almost all of them barely mention it. I have known people to argue passionately in AfD discussions that a subject is notable on the basis of less coverage than this, but to me it is not substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as it wasn't an oversight, I don't mind. Abductive (reasoning) 08:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bum wiper

Really? With that user's history of wiping bums? Toddst1 (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said on the user's talk page, I wasn't 100% happy about it, but I could see nothing that I could objectively object to except for the old username. Your comment above and your (now removed) comment on the user's talk page suggest you do know of more grounds for objection. If so please reblock. I certainly won't quarrel with you over a block that I am borderline on myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Ok! What does the process actual involve? -Est.r (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Responded on Est.r's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You're stalking me again ;-)

You g11-ed this at the same time as I declined an a3 - sorry about that. Right now only my post-deletion edits are in history: I'm agnostic as to whether it should be kept (I redirected it to its parent University). I can re-delete using g11, or use some newly discovered hist-merge skills to restore the spammy bit - which isn't ideal. Any suggestions? TFOWR 10:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously hist-merge isn't relevant here. I've restored the deleted revs, but I'm still in two minds about it - it seems like an unlikely redirect, though I guess it could have some use. Still open to suggestions... ;-) TFOWR 10:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• You edit-conflicted me. The following is a slightly edited copy of what I was going to post in answer to the first of your posts in this section.

1. You were clearly right to decline the a3.
2. The version I deleted still looks promotional to me, and in addition has too little encyclopaedic content to be much use.
3. I have no objection to the redirect.
4. We have to either delete the whole editing history except for the redirect or else restore all of it. The present version effectively gives you as the creator of the version which is still visible in the article history. Since you were not the author of that version this is technically a copyright misrepresentation. Of course it is too trivial to matter, but it is really better to always stick to the rules on copyright, otherwise we get "where do we draw the line?" problems.
5. I don't feel very strongly about which we do (delete or restore) but on balance I would go for delete and re-create the redirect, because information like phone numbers really should not be there.
6. We really must stop bumping into one another like this. It's really too much.

• End of old edit-conflicted post, and now back to the present. Unlikely redirect? Yes, but harmless, it may as well stay. Now that you have restored the old edits I am inclined to just leave it. Really it's not a big enough issue to be worth spending even this much time on, let alone more. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Next time I do CSD stuff I'll check what you're up to first. ;-) TFOWR 11:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I should damned well think so. Good to see you've realised who's boss. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Scarborough and Ryedale Mountain Rescue Team

Thank you for your concern about vandalism about the removal of the team's entry on Wikipedia, but I can assure you that it is not vandalism and we would like the complete entry removed if possible. We will shortly be updating our website and together with this we will be putting a new entry on Wikipedia. Thanks Andy Crossley, Team Leader Srmrt (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you wrote that without having read my message on your talk page explaining why that is unacceptable. I trust that you will now read that message, and will not go ahead with the changes you have proposed. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In reference to your last message, the third party view of the team in Wikipedia is not in line with the current team. We support Wikipedia, but not this entry. I am happy to work with you on a new entry in the near future, but in the short term can you remove the current entry. Thanks. Srmrt (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing is if you explain on the article's talk page exactly what is wrong with the current version of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Scouts Royale Brotherhood

Although we seem to be coming at things from different directions on the AFD for Scouts Royale Brotherhood, I was very impressed with the note that you left for Nurkahn Tampakan (talk · contribs). I hope we can work together to make this a useful page, but if it does get deleted, I think we've done our best to let the proper wikipedia processes occur.Naraht (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nembrala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I know that Nembrala is a terrible, awful, article. However it is about a real place rather than a product so I would personally hesitate to put it up for G11 when it can be stub-ified. I'll stub it now and probably remove your G11, however I would have no objection if you were to re-speedy on alternative grounds. Fæ (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with what you've done to the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Lists of film topics

Hello James. My least recent edit, such as the one I made to Lists of film topics was very constructive because it deletes a wrong link because Lists of film topics is not the same as it:Glossario cinematografico and fr:Technique et grammaire cinématographique it is a List of film topics not a List of film glossary. This is why I made this change. But you just reverted or removed it.

>Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make

This was not a test!

Thank you. -- Fruchtgrapscher (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

investigation

Please dont interfere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelpanicer (talk • contribs) 11:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He is not interfering its an investigation about him, the defendant has a right to defend themselves, besides he is innocent of sockpuppetry, its an alternative account--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a troll, so I've blocked it indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

what about the SPI, that should be closed and denied, Poor James has been accused of a crime he didn't commit--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It certainly should, but I'm not sure about the "mechanics" of the SPI process. I hope a clerk will do the honorable thing. Favonian (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. This was a sockpuppet of a persistent sockpuppeteer, taking revenge because I blocked another of their socks. Presumably the SPI will be closed sooner or later, but if you want to ask for it to be closed by a clerk I believe what you should do is replace {{SPI case status|CUrequest}} at the top of the SPI page by {{SPI case status|close}}. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

my topics has been deleted

dear sir: my topics has been deleted although i have refer to the main source (the main source is my website - www.itexpert.net) , i want to contribute in wikipedia , if there was another reason for deleting my topic please tell! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorbagy10 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the reasons given in the deletion log? If not I suggest you do so. If you have, then perhaps you can clarify what you don't understand about them. In addition, saying "the main source is my website" confirms my impression that the article was intended as promotion, which I almost gave as a third reason for deletion and which, as you presumably know, I mentioned on your talk page. The conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about your own product. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Cowley

Your decision to A7 that surprised me a little; did you look at gnews hits?I was also wondering about their publications (scholar}).

Whilst I'm all in favour of taking a subjects views into account, it's a bit odd, in this case, that such a seemingly innocuous article caused such concern, especially as it has been on Wikipedia for years. I suspect they think it will similarly vanish from FaceBook because it has been deleted; in reality, it might have been more in-keeping with their objective to accept that they cannot choose if an article should exist, and help us work out some appropriately sourced article. Of course, one may end up being written, in the future.

I'm not too bothered, just slightly surprised; I suspect the person might be notable. But, no matter, what is done is done.  Chzz  ►  17:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

PicMango

Hello JBW, I see you've declined db-hoax on PicMango. It's true that the PicMango.com site exists, but I can't find a peep online about all the wild claims made in the article: "PictureKunt"(!), "...driving the price of mangos above $200...", "Furikake Gohan.... PicMango Love Story...number one single in Japan for 8 months". None of the JP singles charts in English mention a "Furikake Gohan". Etc. Just looks like viral marketing BS to me. Did you find something online that I missed? Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there- The Khasskhass.com site is a site to promote Nepali literature. It is a non-profit site that is out there to serve the Nepalese community in the USA and also to help nepalese poets publish their poems on the site. We do not take/make any money from the site, and contribution to the site is all voluntary.

So please let me know how I can put this wiki back on again. The wiki was not to promote but to tell people out there who might be interested to know that Khasskhass.com is about. The site was not intended to market anything but to provide information to Nepalese living in Nepal or abroad. I will really appreciate it if you could help me tweak the content rather than just plain deleting it. May be the message wasn't clear on the wiki content that the site is a non-profit and the wiki was to strictly provide information.

Any help in this matter will be GREATLY appreciated.

Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zingypisces (talk • contribs) 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

hey sockpuppeter

I'm going to get you banned, you only banned me cus u know its true