User talk:JBW/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JBW. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Valnetino KAnzyani update

hey James, I have today updated Valentinos page as it is all wrong, the label Recycled loops is closed for some time, also the discography is not ok. All the updated data was 100% sure - that is why I am wondering why you changed it back to the old one?

Best, Tina JesusLovedYou (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Tina Bavdek General manager : Jesus Loved You & Valentino Kanzyani

Hello Tina. I have had another look at the article, and I have restored your version of the discography: I am willing to believe you know what you are doing there. However, as for the rest of your edit, there are a number of issues. I will explain to you what they are, and then make a suggestion which may help you if you would like to have another go at editing the article.

In my edit summary I used the abbreviation "POV". Since you seem to be new to Wikipedia editing this may not mean anything to you, but it is commonly used in Wikipedia to stand for "point of view". This refers to such comments as, for example, "Tine Kocjančič, ... is the undisputed king of Slovenian underground electronica". This is a personal opinion, even if it is widely held, and Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written from a neutral, objective, viewpoint. Thus it is not considered acceptable to include comments which give a subjective opinion like this unless you can justify it. If a notable and relevant person has expressed an opinion it may be acceptable to say "Jane Smith has said that Tine Kocjančič is the undisputed king ...", but even then it is necessary to be careful. This would only be acceptable if Jane Smith really is notable and relevant: if she is just your best friend then her opinion is no more useful than yours. Also in such a case you should be prepared to give references to documentary evidence that Jane Smith said what you claim she did.
Then there are statements such as "If you're not a newby in the never ending game of beatmatching and scratching, you probably know Valentino doesn't really understand the meaning of words limit, border and purism". This kind of chatty style is common in magazine articles, blog posts, etc, and there is nothing wrong with it there. However, it is not the kind of writing which you would expect in an article in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia requires a more formal, objective style.
Then there are the links you gave to Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter. If you look at the Wikipedia guideline on external links to be avoided you will see that these are not normally acceptable. I also note that one of the links was to a Twitter page of your own. This was not, on this occasion, a factor in my decision to revert your edit, but for future use you should be aware that links of this sort are likely to be regarded as spam and removed for this reason. In fact users who make a habit of adding spam links are likely eventually to be blocked from editing at all.

Now for a suggestion which may be helpful. You can write an edited version of the article in a "private" page of your own, and then it can be checked by someone with experience on Wikipedia before launching it as an article for "public" use. By a "private" page I don't mean one that nobody else can get access to, but it will have your name on it, and what you write should not be deleted from it (provided, of course, you don't write something totally unacceptable such as libel, but I am sure you won't). The Wikipedia jargon for such a page is a "userspace page", and its title has your user name followed by / and then by the name of the page. If you would like to do that just click on this red link: User:JesusLovedYou/Valentino Kanzyani. A page will come up starting with a note saying "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title", but if you type in the space provided and then click on "save" the page will be created. This way you should be able to edit and revise the page without the frustration of finding it has been deleted straight away. Then ask an experienced Wikipedian to check it over (I am willing to do this if you like). When it is ready it can be released as an article.

I hope some of the above has been helpful to you. Please feel very welcome to contact me again for any reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Turbulence: Ideas for Movement

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Turbulence: Ideas for Movement. 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/Turbulence: Ideas for Movement. 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) 01:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right and I am wrong. I looked at the history, and jumped to the very first edit, which should be the creation. Obviously, I was mistaken, but why? I'm not backing away from an apology, I will add something to the AfD, but before I do, do you know who created the article? And why there is no creation edit? I realize the article was created with the Article Wizard, but I just checked a couple others and the oldest edit is the creation. Again, sorry, and I'll modify my comments at Afd.--SPhilbrick T 12:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology is not needed, as it was not your fault: you were misled by the edit history. It seems the article was created by User:DavidUnruhe, and my speedy deletion warning is still on his talk page. The article's log lists it as having been deleted at 10:45, 1 November 2009, and then there is an entry at 22:50, 1 November 2009 which says: Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) restored "Turbulence: Ideas for Movement" ‎ (1 revision restored). I suppose that this means that Anthony Appleyard restored only the last revision (my speedy deletion nomination) rather than the whole edit history, but I have no idea why. You could ask him if you are interested enough to think it worthwhile. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding. I'm researching the magazine a bit more, finding very thin material. I will check with Anthony. Thanks.--SPhilbrick T 12:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

COI

I am well versed with Wikipedia policies. I am not new. Thanks, Xavier449 (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Conference of State Court Administrators

I stubified this page, moved it, and removed the speedy tag. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I am a former New York State Office of Court Administration employee, FYI, but do not believe that I have a COI. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. It would be better expanded to more than a stub, but at least the copyvio has been dealt with. I see no COI problem, but thank you for declaring your position anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT

Hi there JamesBWatson. I want to inform you that you were unwittingly part of an experiment of newbie treatment in which I participated under a different name. The purpose of WP:NEWT is to determine how experienced users would be treated if they were new users and created sub-standard but viable articles. You can find a recollection of my experience at WP:NEWT#SoWhy's experience in case you are interested. Last but not least I want to apologize for having used your time in this way, diverting it from real work on the encyclopedia. If I can offer my time and services for anything you need in return, feel free to ask at any time. Regards So Why 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

hangon

Hello dear,

You added a tag of speed deletion to my article.. and i replied by adding the "hangon" and explaining my situation in my "talk page"

the tag is not yet removed and my article is still in the draft and i don't know why it was considered marketing in the first place ..

please feed me back ..

regards

syriajob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syriajob (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This must refer to User:Syriajob/www.job.sy. I see that it was deleted with the reason given as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". However, now that it has been deleted I can't look at it and see what about the page indicated that it was promotional, so I'm afraid I can't help you. I am sorry about that, but you could try contacting the administrator who deleted the page (Bearian) on his talk page if you like. He would be able to see the text which was deleted, unlike me. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bhaiwala

hiya! hows u? i want to know that what sort of references u need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaiwala (talk • contribs) 20:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find information about what sort of sources are useful at WP:SOURCES. This should be enough to indicate to you the general requirements, but if you want an even fuller picture you could look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Pepper (magazine)

Hello there, was wondering if you might come back to your nom and consider withdrawing. I've added a number of legitimate cites covering it, and the AfD is drawing IP-editor disbelief. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt. I have now withdrawn. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for reviewing. At least the article looks better now, it was a bit sorry. I did chuckle at the IP-editor rationales as well.--Milowent (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

hey whatsup?--Bdwolverine87 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Moomin#External_links

Unnecessary change of order of links? removing misleading comments? What the hell are you talking about?

And why is this unnecessary? Vice versa, no need for an official website to be known as "Official <language here> Moomin Website" - it is obvious that it's a Moomin website. That's why I prefer to go with "Official Website <language here>" - it's more logical thing to do.

As for the order of the links, the Moomin museum would go first as it was opened first and second would be the Moominworld. And I provided the links in their English language because the article is in English (if there is a choice in an website for English entry, why is a problem to provide that in an English article?), why you have problems with that? ********** שבור (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I shall try to answer each of your queries. Firstly, as far as "removing misleading comments" is concerned, I thought that what I was talking about was adequately explained in my edit summary, but if not, I will specify at greater length here. It seemed to me that "Official Website (Finnish)" was likely to be misinterpreted as meaning that the link was to a page in the Finnish language, and likewise "Official Website (Japanese)" that it was in Japanese. It seems to me that "Official Finnish Moomin Website" and "Official Japanese Moomin Website" might be less likely to deter English-speakers from looking. In your comment above you say "language here", but the point is that the pages linked are not in those languages; they are in English. Secondly, as for the change of order of the links, there was no evident reason for the change, which is what I meant by referring to it as unnecessary. You have now given a reason, though I am surprised that you feel so strongly that the links must be in chronological order of foundation. Thirdly, as for your asking me why I "have problems with" giving English language links, I do not understand the question at all; perhaps you would like to clarify it. I did not change the destination of any of the links: they were to English language pages before my edit and they were still to the same English languages after my edit.

I hope that I have helped to clear up your doubts. Please feel welcome to contact me again if you have any further questions. Finally, you may like to read WP:CIVIL, if you haven't already done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello again JamesBWatson. First of all I want to apologize for my aggressive expression in the message above, I know it wasn't respectful. As for the external links in the article, I thought, as there is a template for languages, would be a better use as it makes a short length of text, instead of "Official Finnish Moomin Website" to a "Official Website (Finnish)". Before your edit of the links, some of them were English entries and some were not (the official Finnish website and the theme park website for example) so in my latest edit I have edited all the links (except the Japanese) to English entries each, I hope it is okay now. Also, I thought the use of the word "Moomin" in there shouldn't be necessary as the whole article is about Moomin, so it's obvious that the links would be those of Moomin. As for the order of the links, it wasn't that important at all, but I just felt it could be better if the Museum would go first as it has more strong atmosphere dedicated to the books of Moomin rather than the theme park which is mostly inspired from the 1990-91 Moomin TV series.

I hope I clarified my reason as possible and I'm apologize for any bad English in it. Thanks for your reply. ********** שבור (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this message. Firstly, before your edit of the links some of them were English entries and some were not: you made a definite improvement there, but I did not change that. Secondly, I agree that "Official Moomin Website" is unnecessary, but I didn't think it important enough to bother about, so I just reverted to the old version, rather than typing in a new version. I certainly don't object to your removing the word "Moomin" here. Thirdly, yes you were a little aggressive, but I have seen far worse, and I fully accept your apology. It may be worth bearing in mind, though, that it is worth being really polite, even to editors who don't deserve politeness, as you are more likely to get co-operation from them. Fourthly, I could tell from your English that you were not a native English speaker, but it is certainly not bad enough to cause any problems. I wish you a good time on Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Green roof claimed book spam

Hi James, and Netalarm, I wonder if I could ask why you both consider this book to be spam to be removed from the Green roof article?

Luckett, Kelly (2009). Green Roof Construction and Maintenance. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 007160880X.

I don't have a copy of it as it's fairly recent, 30 quid, and also I've found most green roof books that I have bought to be too focussed on architects & town planners, rather than builders. However from the contents list for this, it seems like it might be a useful and more hands-on guide. I didn't add this book originally and as I haven't read it myself I wouldn't have added it, but describing it as outright spam though certainly seems excessive. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several points involved here. Firstly, there is the question whether the addition of the link in question was spam, secondly there is the question whether, even if it was spam, it was a good link to include anyway, and thirdly there is the question whether spam should be deleted on principal, even if it might otherwise have been considered a good link. The first question ("is it spam?") is an issue of the motivation of the person placing the link, and is quite separate from whether the link is a good one. Considering the overall history of the edits of the editor who placed the reference I have no doubt whatsoever that it was spam, i.e. that the principal purpose of placing it was promotional: this user's recent edits consistalmost entirely of placing references to one publisher's publications. On the second question ("even if it was spam, was it perhaps a useful reference anyway?") like Andy Dingley I have not seen a copy of the book, but what I have read about it suggests that it may well be a good book, but that there is nothing special about it, and no obvious reason why Wikipedia should refer to it. By Wikipedia policy if the inclusion of information is challenged the onus is on those wishing to include it to justify the inclusion, and frankly "I haven't seen the book but the list of contents looks promising" is not a justification. Thirdly, on the question "should we by default remove links which are clearly intended as spam, and keep them only if there are overriding reasons to do so?" opinions differ, and there is no clear consensus. My own opinion is "consider each case on its own merits, but if in doubt do not let the spammers have their way". The practical effect of this is to reinforce the principal that the onus is on those wishing to include the information to justify it, and therefore to reinforce the statement that "I haven't seen the book but the list of contents looks promising" is not a justification. However, this is not an essential point: even if you disagree with the line "by default don't let spammers have their way", this is, as I say, only a reinforcement of what is Wikipedia policy anyway. To summarise my argument: this is clearly spam, and while it may be a good reference, nobody has shown that it is, and until someone does so it is not acceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:KINOGLAS

Hey there. My apologies seems like we gave warning at the same time for User:KINOGLAS at User talk:KINOGLAS. The user received two identical warnings from us at the same time, and your warning didn't have signature, so I removed duplicate as I thought that twinkle was going crazy and started to post duplicates. Ilyushka88 talk 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I realised I had forgotten to put my signature, so I tried to edit it, only to find an edit conflict because you were removing my warning at the time. These things happen: not a big deal. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I was just about to tag Maclaren because it read like an advertisement but you did it all for me. hah thank you! A8 UDI 13:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ballymacoll Stud

Hi James,

Thanks for sending me a message about my article. It was the first time I have added an article and obviously I have not understood some of the rules. I will try to clarify my position and you can advise as to the best way to proceed. Ballymacoll Stud is a privately owned stud farm, that my father manages for the family. I designed and maintain the website for the stud. The stud does not operate in a commercial manner and does not actively advertise or promote itself in any way.

As a regular user of wikipedia I have noticed that the stud has been referenced in many articles but no one had created an article for it. I had hoped that someone would create such but eventually I decided to do it myself. I think that the stud merits an article on wikipedia. I will send an email to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org from the domain admin account authorising usage of the material. I will also edit the article to remove any text that expresses an opinion so that it only displays facts.

Thanks again and please give me an further advise you may have.

Ballymacoll (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have given an extended answer to this message on Ballymacoll's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gananoque haunting

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gananoque haunting, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gananoque haunting. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DMacks (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Rusty Baker

Hello JamesBWatson, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Rusty Baker - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 22:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

David Lichtenstein

Why do you keep changing his place of residence to Monsey NY? He resides in Ocean County, NJ do you have a source that says he resides in Monsey? Thetrueword88 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't keep changing it: I changed it once. Yes I have a source confirming Lichtenstein's address as 5 Grand Park Drive, Monsey, New York 10952. Do you have a source indicating that this is incorrect? Since you have queried this I have added this source to the article, together with a note on the article's talk page. It is also interesting that you object to my once changing this without a source, considering that you have at least twice changed the same information without giving a source. JamesBWatson (talk)

SGAUS

I'm new to Wikipedia (about six weeks now) and started the SGAUS article (I have also tweaked some other state defense force related sites). For lack of experience, I tried to model the article after other non-profit lobby type group articles (i.e. ACLU & National_Rifle_Association. I believe that I have been objective and made every effort to cite current and accurate information. I have two issues with edits made by user: Todd Gallagher; 1. state-level associations and chapters are two different entities are not part of the SGAUS organization. While SGAUS does and has in the past recognized independent groups seeking to establish 32 USC 109 state defense forces; I can find no source that SGAUS supports them (implying financial support). 2. I believe it is counter productive to undo a block of edits over one area of objection, this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I welcome oversight of senior Wikipedia members as this article develops. If users Todd Gallagher has an issue with the SGAUS "history" I would suggest these edits be placed on the history section of the article and not throughout the article.

What is required to request the article be cleaned?

Respectfully,22015va (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand your complaints. You have clearly put a huge amount of effort into this article, and I can well imagine how frustrating it is to see someone simply discard large amounts of your work. Unfortunately I do not know enough about SGAUS to comment on the accuracy of Todd Gallagher's edits, so I shall not try to do so. As for your complaint that Todd Gallagher has "thrown the baby out with the bathwater", if you are right then clearly that is not helpful. On the other hand when I know from experience that when an editor has done a large amount of editing to an article (as you have) it can be very hard to separate the good from the bad, and it is tempting to take the easy way out, and revert the whole lot. Of course this does not make it alright to do so, but it makes it more understandable. There are a lot more issues here too: for example, there were references to archives, and those archives have been blocked, and you have removed the references to them. Todd Gallagher says that you had the archives blocked. I do not know how he claims to know this, nor whether it is true. If I had good reason to believe that Todd Gallagher is wrong about this, then I would certainly be taking steps to inform him, and if I had good reason to believe he was knowingly lying then I would be doing more than that. On the other hand if I had good reason to believe Todd Gallagher's claims then I would have no sympathy with you at all: Wikipedia is not censored, and any attempt to block access to material in this way would be completely unacceptable. I do not know the truth of all this, and so I do not wish to take either side in the quarrel. I do know, however, that both you and Todd Gallagher have particular points of view, and that both of you have been trying to make the article reflect your point of view. I aslo know that both of you have tended to stick uncompromisingly to your own version, reverting one another's edits. The best way forward is for both of you to discuss the matter with a view to reaching a version of the article which reflects both points of view. Whether that is possible depends on you and Todd Gallagher. I will post a message on his talk page asking him to try to reach an accommodation. If no progress is made within a few days we can ask another Wikipedian to try to mediate (I do not think I would be the best person to do this). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir, thank you for the guidance. Not sure what I should do now? I have posted a paragraph to the discussion page. Is there some action I must take to have the banner removed? I believe the article is balanced now and accurately distinguished between the organization, the independent associations, and the actual state run websites. I am not seeking conflict nor do I wish turn a hobby in to work. Respectfully22015va (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Holmewood House School

Hello You have placed a tag on the Holmewood House School page. The text has now been substantially amended to avoid any blatant advertising, copying from other sources or conflict of interest. I have also tried to bring it in line with that of other similar schools whose entries appear to be acceptable. Would it now be possible for you to remove the tag? - sorry, I am a new user and am not sure of procedures. Thank you. Holmewood (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Italics for species and genera

Hi James. I noticed this edit on my watchlist and several others in your contributions removed italics for species and genera. Please review WP:ITALICS#Foreign terms. This is a convention beyond Wikipedia, as well, with the ICZN requiring italicization of taxa. Botanical taxa (for genus rank and below) are italicized as well. Can you go back through your contributions and fix those edits? Much appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com

I see that you recently moved AfterEllen.com to AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com. But would you mind if I moved it to AfterEllen and AfterElton.com? Would that seem like a good move to you or not? The reason I feel that it would be a good move is that it flows better under that title, sort of like two relatives with the same last name. Instead of saying Richard Spears and Kristina Spears, you would (or are at least supposed to say), Richard and Kristina Spears. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that your suggested title flows better. However, I'm not sure that it wouldn't be less clear that it refers to two separate web addresses: it would be easy to read it as one URL [AfterEllen and AfterElton.com] rather than as [AfterEllen.com] and [AfterElton.com]. I would be inclined to leave it where it is, but if you are still inclined to move it perhaps it would be a good idea to suggest it on the article's talk page first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I will suggest it on that article's talk page first. It is not an active talk page, but I can be patient about this and let it stay there for months. I can also suggest it at some related project, in order to get more thoughts about it sooner. If you do not mind, I am going to copy and paste part of this discussion there on this article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Also, although I still prefer the present title, I won't get upset if it does get changed. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Done. But now I am starting to think that your title is better out of the two, due to what you stated about it possibly being perceived as one site under my title. I would suggest a comma be placed in mine, but we don't usually have commas in Wikipedia article titles and that would seem awkward. Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just looked at the article's talk page, and seen how completely inactive it is: I hadn't realised. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I always expect that on articles that are not heavily edited, unless we are talking about articles not heavily edited due to being locked (like the Sexual intercourse article; though talk pages such as those are not super active, they are active enough for either a reply within a few hours or a reply within several days or a month). Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The fcps issue

Thank you. I would just like to suggest that the fact that it was covered worldwide speaks for the issue. We had a school that would not allow ANY touching. Girls could not hug girls, and boy could not shake hands. That's pretty harsh by any standard. If I posted this in the wrong place my apologies in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't post in the wrong place at all. However, I am going to be rather tied up over the next couple of days, so I may not be much help. However, if the issue has not been dealt with in by Monday I shall try to get onto it. Sorry about the delay, but I will do what I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now edited the article in an attempt to answer the objections which were raised. For the moment I have left the notice saying the content is disputed, while we see whether there are any further responses, but I hope it can be removed soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. He seems to have changed the substance of the argument though. I presented an argument ..Students do not, the Court tells us in Tinker vs. Des Moines, "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door." " Anyway, thanks again and let's see how it goes. 68.119.67.94 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

David Gress

I see you have taken an interest in David Gress, an old article of mine. It probably needs plenty of work. It currently presents a typical BLP issue. I thought I should check first that we see this the same way. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I made the change that I did because of the sourcing in one case and the inadequate sourcing in the other, and also because experience elsewhere led me to doubt the reliability of the editor responsible. I have no other knowledge of Gress, and am not competent to make content judgments beyond this "what are its sources?" level. Looking briefly at your editing history, talk page, and user page, I get the impression you seem to be a conscientious editor, and I am happy to leave you to put the article right. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

India de Beaufort

Hi James

Thanks for your tips and I'll try to work that way if I need to change anything again. I'm actually India's mother and try to keep up to date with her information in case anyone puts up misleading information.

Regards

Karen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildalaverne (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple more points arising out of the above reply.

If you are editing the article about your daughter you should be aware of wikipedia's Conflict of interest guideline. You can read it all if you like, but the essential point is that you should be very careful to avoid anything that might seem to be biased. I see no reason, from what you have written so far, to suppose you will be biased, but unfortunately many people who edit articles about subject they are connected to do so, with the result that many Wikipedia editors (myself included) tend to be suspicious of any editing by anyone who might have a conflict of interest (commonly abbreviated to COI). Really the point is just to be careful.
When you are posting comments to talk pages, such as this one, it helps to add your "signature". You can do this simply by typing 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end of your comment. This will be automatically converted into a message giving your user name, a link to your user talk page, the date, etc. This is very helpful, as it enables other editors to see who you are, and get back to you easily.
Just in case you are wondering, I am posting this here, rather than on your talk page, because I find conversations which jump from one user's talk page to another can be very confusing, so I prefer to keep it all together. Many Wikipedia editors agree with this, though not all.
Finally, if you are feeling overwhelmed by all the information about how to work on Wikipedia, don't worry! When I started I found it all very confusing, but you get used to it quite quickly.

JamesBWatson (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hanna Zajc

Just a friendly note on Hanna Zajc. Going to the Olympics is not only a claim of importance, it's a claim of meeting WP:ATHLETE, so I declined the speedy. If you think she's not notable, try AfD. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Err... yes! I must be getting tired: what a stupid mistake. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome!

Thank you for welcoming me here! I didn't realize that the community was so closely knit here at wikipedia. Is there any place that new wikipedians are encouraged to edit? And what would you recommend I do to start out? Awaiting a response, Blade bane (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Blade bane

Well, Ethan, naturally not everybody is equally friendly, but it's nice to know that my effort has been appreciated. It's difficult to recommend any particular type of article to start on, because it depends so much on you. However, there is one thing I do recommend. That is to start by looking for small improvements you can make to existing articles. Many people jump straight into either writing major new articles or making major changes to existing ones. The trouble is that, because they are inexperienced in Wikipedia's ways, they do a lot of things that are not accepted, and they find much of what they do is being reverted or deleted. As you can imagine, this can be frustrating and disheartening, and I am convinced it is better to start small and learn as you go along. You could start off looking at articles in subjects which interest you, and seeing if any of them can be improved by fairly simple changes, and work from there. JamesBWatson (talk)

St. Augustine Preparatory School

Dear James,

I added the name of this school to the listing on international schools in Nicaragua because the listing was incomplete. The information posted was not different from the information posted for other international schools in other countries. Please tell me what needs to be done so that people who search for schools get a complete listing. Thank you very much, Mrivascaldera (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I shall try to answer you query, and I hope I can be of some help to you. Wikipedia's policy is that we do not include just everything, and there are certain standards which information is expected to follow before being included. Directly relevant in this case is the policy on "What Wikipedia is not", and particularly the section Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia's notability guidelines describe what is required for inclusion, but essentially the criterion is that a subject should not be included unless it has received a substantial amount of coverage in reliable published sources which are independent of the subject (so that, for example, a school's own prospectus or web site would not be sufficient). You are quite right in saying that the information you posted was not different from information for other schools, and it is natural for someone new to editing Wikipedia to think that means it must be alright. However, the fact of the matter is that a lot of the information on lists like this should not be there, and I am engaged on the job of weeding it out. Unfortunately this is a very long job, with many hundreds of individual entries to check, and so there will still be many bad entries for quite a while. If a school satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, and if there are reliable sources to support the fact, then it is very likely that there will be an article on the school, and that would be taken as sufficient justification for keeping the school on a list, unless there is a good reason to think that an article is not acceptable and should be deleted. In the case of St. Augustine Preparatory School, the article was deleted because it appeared to be written mainly in order to promote the school. If an article about it is written from a more neutral point of view, with references to reliable third-party sources to support it, then it is likely that it will be acceptable. I am sure you will understand, however, that this depends on what such an article would contain, and I can make no promises about an article which has not been written. If you are thinking of writing such an article yourself, however, you should bear in mind Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. I hope this has been of some help to you. Please feel welcome to contact me again if you wish to. Finally, I have added a welcome message to your talk page. It would have been better to have done this earlier: it is not very welcoming to find the first message you get is telling you that your article is unacceptable: apologies. However, you are no less welcome because nobody said so right away. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bald Freak Music

Hi, could you please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bald Freak Music, and review the work I did on the Thal article? I think the rest can be deleted, but I believe I've salvaged the Thal article and established notability. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to this, and thanks also for the work you have put in to this. I have made a comment on the AfD page. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Message from Ashu.sushant

wt kinda test i culdn't get u???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashu.sushant (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a typo: it should have said "text", not "test". JamesBWatson (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

JamesBWatson,

I appreciate the advice concerning the edit that I attempted to make, though, though your second message has me slightly confused as to whether I did something wrong/vandalism, making a negative error in my attempt to correct the spelling of the Article subject's name and adding more text to the photo. I am appreciative of all guidance as I am still learning. Thank you, MatrixEditor.MatrixEditor (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned refs

When removing <ref>s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind (e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie ⚔ 02:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I know well enough to do that, but I evidently forgot to check. Thanks for reminding me. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominating template sandbox pages for speedy deletion

Hi James,

I see you nominated {{lead too short/sandbox}} for speedy deletion under T3. To the best of my knowledge such sandbox pages are exempt: there is explicit support for them in {{documentation}}, and they are frequently used as designated sandboxes for protected templates. I've removed the speedy tag as I don't believe that the rationale applies. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mathias von Dam

Why did you delete my page about Mathias von Dam? i know the guy in real life and i've seen their family tree... he's the last desended of the schauenburg family. And therefor has the title of "Archduke of Schleswig-Holstein" i see no reason why you deleted it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luuxlatino2960 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mathias von Dam

"Mathias von Dam Oh good to hear im danish too :b but Schleswig-Holstein was once Danish and he's the desendent of the Duke from there. I happend to know him personally :D

And should i add more info on the page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luuxlatino2960 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless he's a descendant in the male line, there's not much of a ducal future in store for him. Providing some reliable sources would be a good idea, and you better hurry, because I don't think the article is going to have a very long life otherwise. Already been delete once. Favonian (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Yeah i will, already started, He's from the family of Schauenburg. They have a family tree i've seen by myself.. but i don't really know how i should make more reliable sources have any idea ? i think it would be a shame to delete the page because it's interresting with this old bloodline still existing.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luuxlatino2960 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You should click on that link about sources. Have some sort of reputable media (assuming they exist) written about this gentlemen and his claim to aristocratic fame and fortune? Descendants, legitimate or otherwise, from ducal or royal houses are a dime a dozen. Favonian (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Whoops! It looks like the administrators didn't buy the idea. Frankly, I think you should go back to doing your homework. Favonian (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) "

I was already explaining to Favonian and he was helping me out to edit the page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luuxlatino2960 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)