Jump to content

User talk:JBW

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:JamesBWatson)

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

COI editing at European Public Health Alliance

[edit]

Hi, JB; thought I'd let you know.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Wow! There's COI editing mixed into the editing history, intertwined with the other editing so much as to make untangling it look like quite a task. JBW (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2A06:5902:1610:6C00:AAB:17ED:231F:5F68

[edit]

No action needed unless they return but get a load of this.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And return they did. Kudos to @PhilKnight.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Skywatcher68, except that I would have blocked for much longer than 48 hours, as the trouble has been going on for 9 days. I know that opinions on this vary, and obviously Phil is just as qualified to make a judgement of how to handle a particular case as I am, but my experience is that a block for a small fraction of the time span over which unacceptable editing has taken place is rarely effective. Well, we'll see what happens, and reblocking isn't difficult. JBW (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I have re-blocked for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"DreamWorks Madagascar" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect DreamWorks Madagascar has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 19 § DreamWorks Madagascar until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about fraudsters vandalizing wikipedia

[edit]

Hi JWB! I have serious concerns about this. I have reported several pages of fraudsters in the past. I got this one from Reddit.

The company is nothing but a scam, as I was going through Reddit. Wikipedia name is being used to defraud people. Undetectable.ai History shows that the page has been nominated for deletion, but did not receive much larger objective discussion by mostly amateur nominators. 4 of the 4 co-founders are not business professionals, but fraudsters.

The only media coverage that exists of the "founders" is regarding their felonies. An editor on Wikipedia added a section about felonies a few times, including the note that one of the founders has been convicted to selling drugs to college students, while presenting themselves as a company for students. there are no real employees.

Can you look into this? I think an experienced editor should do a proper nomination to delete the page, and note all the concerns about conflict of interest, and lack of sources to establish notability, along with repeated attempts to remove entire paragraph made regarding the questionable background of executives. Do you know an experienced editor who have interest in such cases? I am concerned about the danger it represents to the community, as the reputation of Wikipedia could be used for someone's deceptive practices. Out of 20 sources, i am not able to see one that can help establish notability.

Some edits are made by

Here are the edits the founders have been trying to remover over 4 times, as seen in the history of the edits.

8 April 2024

[edit]

108.60.60.254 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's really far more there than I am willing to delve into. If you believe there is a major problem you may like to take it to one of the noticeboards, though I'm not sure which would be appropriate. If it really is a case of fraudsters abusing Wikipedia then possibly reporting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents may be justified. JBW (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for guidance! I just posted there. 108.60.60.254 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your edit at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kedron_State_High_School (20/03/2025)

[edit]
for "Removing one minor incident of virtually no significance in the scale of the history of the school"

Asbestos incidents are reoccurring and relevant to the school, its history, and its safety. Within the last 5 years alone there have been several occasions where asbestos was an active health hazard; windows were closed, air conditioning disabled, and barriers in place for weeks as construction occurred releasing asbestos powder into the air, a hole has been punched in a wall and two roofs have partially caved in resulting in temporary classroom evacuation and closure. The reason it appears to be “one minor incident” is because most simply don’t make headlines and thus don’t meet verifiability criteria to be added to Wikipedia. To call it of “virtually no significance” is disingenuous. In terms of utility, it is likewise relevant for any parents to know before enrolling students at the school.

Your confusion is understandable, there is no way for you to have known about this otherwise. I recommend tagging that section of the page with this information somehow so others don't do the same. I would do it myself but I am new and don't know how. Just wanted to give you a heads up, since I reverted your work. - Cogmind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogmind (talk • contribs) 04:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian IP editing Wake Christian Academy

[edit]

I'm guessing one of the whitewashers found a proxy.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI editors at Nazarene Theological Seminary

[edit]

Hi, JB; at least one registered account, who also admitted to editing while logged-out, has a declared COI. Not sure about this "Naz1908" but that name appears to be a portmanteau of the seminary's name + founding year of the associated church.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Restoration of Edit Made by a Blocked User

[edit]

Dear [JBW]

I am writing to formally request the restoration of an edit made by the user [Akmal94], who edited the article Ahmad Shah Durrani on 23:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC). I acknowledge that you blocked [Akmal94 (talk) on 11 July 2024 due to his repeated edit wars, ownership behavior, and attempts to be insulting across various articles.

However, I believe that the specific edit in question contributed positively to the article, I kindly request its restoration please.

I respond user [Akmal94] with the following remarks. Your statement appears to be biased and driven by personal preferences rather than factual accuracy. It is well-documented that descendants of royal families live in various countries. For example, the family of King Zahir Shah and King Amanullah reside in Italy and London, the descendants of the former Shah of Iran live in Egypt, and Prince Harry of the United Kingdom has settled in Canada. Similarly, the descendants of King Shah Zaman, the grandson of Ahmad Shah Abdali, reside in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Therefore, there is no doubt that the descendants of King Ahmad Shah Durrani can also be living in Quetta, Pakistan, with dignity and pride. Your attempt to dismiss this fact based on a shared surname alone is misleading. Furthermore, I have noted that you have previously been warned multiple times by respected editors and were ultimately blocked indefinitely by [JBW] (talk / contribs) on July 11, 2024, due to repeated edit wars, ownership behavior, and attempts to be insulting across various articles. Given this history of biased and disruptive editing, I am restoring the edit you attempted to remove from the Ahmad Shah Durrani article.

I tried to restore the edit but due to [semi-protection] on the page I could undo that,

I appreciate your time and consideration. Best regards.Aslam Kassi talk 22:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aslam Kassi: Can you clarify exactly what change you wish to see made to the article? I have spent a considerable amount of time following editing histories to try to understand what you are talking about, but have failed to do so. Contrary to what you say, Akmal94 did not edit the article on 22 July 2023; their only editing of the article was in April and May 2019. Eventually, after a lot of searching, I realised that you meant that Akmal94 had edited the article's talk page, not the article, on that date. The comments on that talk page from Akmal94 and from you, and the comments from you on this page, don't have any connection to any edit Akmal94 has ever made to the article, as far as I can see. JBW (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"SOAP" mnemonic

[edit]

Hi, I noted that you removed the section from Sum of two cubes. The technique is well-sourced (I've added two more) and relevant to the topic. I've restored it under the proof and shortened it. Please keep it. Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ericteehee

[edit]

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Delta_Xs he is back Trade (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Sorry, I don't understand; can you clarify for me? Firstly, why is this Ericteehee? Secondly, why are you telling me about an account which has edited only on Wikidata? JBW (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banned IP

[edit]

Hi JBW, I notice you blocked an IP here, couple of questions: 1. What was this about? 2. Is this the same user?

All the best

BNS Boynamedsue (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue:
  1. Since 2019 the IP range has been the source of well over 1000 edits on "Beast Quest" related articles; in the early part of that time the edits were occasional, but more recently they have been coming much more rapidly. A very large proportion of those edits removed content without explanation, or added unsourced content without explanation, or both. A significant proportion of the edits made changes which were definitely wrong, as verified by reliable sources. The editor has ignored talk page messages, and has been undeterred by temporary blocks on individual IP addresses and smaller ranges. I have, in fact, found only one user talk page edit from this range relating to "Beast Quest" related articles, and that one was just an angry attack on other editors, not an attempt to address the concerns.
  2. The edit by the IP address that you link to is on a totally unrelated topic, and the IP address locates to a different continent. Why do you think it may be the same user? JBW (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the full answer. The reason I suspected they might be the same is because both users had added somewhat dubious "by whom" tags to articles, and I have come across other similar misuses of this tag by the blocked user before. Looking at it more carefully in light of what you said, I now see them being the same individual is much less likely than I thought. The blocked user typed "by who" but the user I queried wrote "by whom", and the blocked user did not add a date after the tag, whereas the other user did. Apologies for wasting your time with this.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your full protections of Talk:Sexism/Archive 1, Talk:Sexism/Archive 2, and Talk:Sexism/Archive 3

[edit]

Hello, in December 2011, you fully protected these pages in response to IP vandalism/tinkering (see their page histories), which is a relatively unusual action. Please unprotect them or at the least reduce their protection to extendedconfirmed/semi, to allow non-admin users (like myself) and non-admin bots to perform maintenance of archive comments/signatures/links, etc. I see your actions there as a disproportionate response to IP edits, though I'm aware that extended-confirmed protection didn't exist in 2011 (it was added in 2016; see this comment to a Signpost story by Mz7), otherwise you might have used that, and semi-automated archive maintenance wasn't as common then as it later became. I'm writing here per the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease. The impetus for this request was my importation of old edits to the sexism page and its talk page, and then my subsequent discovery that Talk:Sexism/Archive 1 has some missing/out-of-order text, largely because of this IP vandalism edit in December 2004 and the subsequent incomplete attempt to fix it. I could watchlist the archive pages if that would make you feel better about protecting them. Thanks for your consideration. Graham87 (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: More than 13 years later I can't remember what prompted me to do that, but it was in my early days as an administrator, and I rather think that at the time I thought that archives should never be edited, so they might as well be fully protected. Whatever I had in mind at the time I certainly wouldn't do anything like that now, so I've unprotected them. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. JBW (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: I shouldn't think there's much point in watchlisting the pages, as I don't see any reason to think those pages are any more likely to be vandalised than any other ancient archives. JBW (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much; all fair enough. Graham87 (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article

[edit]

Hi JBW! I wrote on your page before, I restored my password. I have a project for my social science class about underrepresented communities. My assignment is to present an underrepresented community and showcase the steps I have taken toward a solution. I created a Wikipedia article from scratch for the category *Romanian women*, and it was accepted. Later, I found a poorly written draft that I significantly edited. I also attended a gallery related to this subject.

In the past, I created the Wikipedia page Carina Larpin. Corina Larpin

Can you help me with the style for this? Draft:Jane Skripnik I tried to ensure the article was not promotional, and I didn't want to submit it without review. I am not certain about all the sources, but here are several I considered reliable: a national government agency that published two articles—one in Romanian and one in English—with slight variations.

Other sources provide in-depth coverage of the subject in major media outlets. The text appears neutral, and there are no indications that it is promotional. I assume the national agency was used as a reference.

I am confident in sources 1, 2, 6, and 10. Source 11 is an interview. Sources 3, 4, and 10 are primary sources. I kept source 12, which seems like a press release as a reference for additional information, but a press release cannot be considered independent source. However, I believe it is appropriate for the information I used.

These sources provide strong and detailed coverage of the subject, especially the National Governmental Center, which functions similarly to the White House press center in the U.S., offering in-depth report. This is what caught my attention in editing the draft. The original draft was in very poor condition—I had to practically rewrite it from nothing. Moondust342 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW there is also one source an an interview for additional information I added. Moondust342 (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms and all that

[edit]

Hi JBW. Read your userpage. When dealing with new users I am a very strong believer in avoiding the use of opaque acronyms. Yes, it takes longer to type "conflict of interest" than "WP:COI", or "the notability guideline for people" than "WP:BIO", but if the purpose is to help the editor, not simply to dismiss them, it is worth the effort.

That sounds like a repetitive and boring task, the kind computers are good at. You could use User:Polygnotus/Scripts/ExpandAcronyms.js (probably best to copy it to your userspace and run it from there since I am still working on it which might cause it to break once in a while).

If you select text which contains stuff like [[WP:COI]] or WP:NPOV and you press Ctrl-Shift-Z the acronyms get expanded into:

[[WP:COI|the conflict of interest guideline]] [[WP:NPOV|the neutral point of view policy]]

In the "More" tab there is a new menu option where you can choose the hotkey and create a list of acronyms and their expanded variants.

Of course it isn't limited to acronyms or links to existing Policies and Guidelines; if you find yourself typing the same thing over and over again you can add a single word that expands into that explanation.

Limitations are that it does not work in DiscussionTools (yet).

What do you think? Any feature requests? I haven't made a long list of commonly used acronyms yet. And thanks for your comment over at Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace#uw-coi_and_uw-paid! Polygnotus (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi, JBW. I know exactly what you mean, regarding this discussion. The problem can be mitigated by adding {{No newcomer task}} to the article; that stops it in its tracks. It is, however, a very blunt instrument, as it targets all newcomer tasks, and also it points users to the top of the article regardless where improvement is needed. So let's say you have an {{underlinked section}} template in the 16th section, the Newcomer Task process will send all the newbies to the top of the article where they will all start adding links to the lead; they'll never see the underlinked template down the page. So I try to use it sparingly, but sometimes it's really needed. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: That's interesting. I know very little about how the newcomer task process works, but what I do know encourages me to think that the whole thing is well meant but misguided, and does far more harm than good. Knowing what links are appropriate and what aren't requires an understanding of how Wikipedia works, which can only come from experience; the idea that it's a trivial task which can be assigned to people with no experience of editing is grossly mistaken. JBW (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree, and could talk for a long time about that, but don't want to hijack your page. It's true of a lot of these initiatives, unfortunately. Mathglot (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW&oldid=1282704045"