User talk:JBW

== User: 98.216.90.15 ==

Hi,

Thanks for taking care of 98.216.90.15, at least for a little while. I think we may have hit a bump in the road though. As soon as 98.216.90.15 was blocked from editing, another account, PilotBoy5 came back into action after having no edits from July 21-Yesterday. When he posted his edit to Bradley International Airport (which was where 98.216.90.15 edited all the time) he said in the edit description "I have added this because it is true. So tofutwitch, don't delete it because that would just be wrong. THIS IS A REFERENCE" I did not delete is, but another user did for understanding reasons. I think that there is a chance they may be the same user, but I'm not sure. Also, he also used a very similar source as 98.216.90.15 for one edit to Charles M. Schulz – Sonoma County Airport, it read: "My dad works for Horizon Air. He is in the route department for Horizon Air. He showed me a new schedule" What do you think? It could be that we just have two kids who don't like to listen.... Let me know what you think. Thanks.  tofutwitch11 T. C.   12:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, sorry it's taken me 5 days to reply to this. If, when I receive a message, I am too busy to deal with it, I normally plan to deal with it when I come back. However, what often happens is that it soon becomes lost behind a line of other messages and forgotten.

I think it very probably is the same person, but since at the moment it was just a one-off edit I think we can ignore it. Feel free to let me know if the trouble restarts when the IP's block expires (26 August). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds Good. One Question though, when you block an IP, can a user with an account log in and edit? Thanks  tofutwitch11 T. C.   19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

Can you please tell me why you deleted this page? It is most certainly passes the notability guidelines. The page was deleted in haste and was not properly discussed prior to its deletion. Is there a way for you to restore it? Thank you! Doooda (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You say that the article "most certainly passes the notability guidelines", but you provide no evidence that it did so. The article's only sources were blog posts and pages belonging to the Aspen Institute. Presumably you would not make such a categorical statement as that the article "most certainly" passes the guidelines without having read those guidelines, in which case you must be aware that unreliable and non-independent sources are not sufficient. Nothing in the article indicated significance in the eyes of anyone other than the organisation and its members. I agreed with the assessment of RHaworth, Kudpung and Blanchardb who had respectively proposed deletion, nominated it for speedy deletion, and restored the speedy deletion nomination after it had been removed, possibly by you. As for deletion "in haste", the article was first proposed for deletion at 11:55, 11 August 2010, and was deleted at 19:38, 16 August 2010. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What can one do to request a page about that organization? If one provides more notable sources that are sufficient under the notability guidelines, can one just recreate the page? Is there a copy of it saved some where? How can I get the copy of that text? Thanks.Doooda (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the article to User:Doooda/Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs for you to work on. If and when it is ready it can be moved back to the main space as an article. Note, however, that this is a temporary process to allow you time to improve the article, not a long-term alternative to having it as an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Uffe Elbæk

Hello,

You recently deleted my entry for Uffe Elbæk despite my request to "hold on" as I was preparing to provide more information and learning how to use wikipedia.

Can you put my entry back up?

Below are several English sources where you can find mention of Uffe Elbæk

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/03/kaos.html

http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/27/most_unusual_college_in_the_world/

http://www.dolectures.com/speakers/speakers-2009/uffe-elbaek

http://wiser-u.net/summer/tedxwiseru/uffe-elbaek/

http://www.copenhagen2009.org/Media/~/media/Media/Files/Press%20Releases/National_Marketing_Fund_Grant.ashx

http://www.copenhagen2009.org/Media/~/media/Media/Files/Press%20Releases/National_Marketing_Fund_Grant.ashx

http://www.glisa.org/

http://www.xtra.ca/blog/national/post/2010/01/12/Copenhagen-2009-Outgames-posted-a-profit-report.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javileco (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

--Javier Leocadio Colon 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The article told us of a business that Uffe Elbæk has set up and run, that he has been a local councilor, and that he is a prospective candidate for an election. None of this indicates satisfying the relevant notability guidelines: see WP:BIO, including the section WP:POLITICIAN. The links you have given above include many links to pages which at a quick look do not seem to mention Uffe Elbæk, some which give him minor mention, and some which are clearly not independent sources (some of them, for example, are clearly labelled as press releases). Nothing at all suggests that he comes anywhere near satisfying the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me JamesBWatson but Uffe Elbæk is clearly a notable person as the "founder" of a whole new way of studying business (The Kaos Pilots). Despite its name it is not a band... it is actually a university. The man created a school and a whole new way of learning that is being replicated across the globe now and that is mentioned in this article: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/03/kaos.html

I would like to also point out that Fast Company has its own wikipedia entry... it was created by Alan Webber and Bill Taylor, two former Harvard Business Review editors and is regarded as a "first peek" at the future of business leaders. Alan Webber is actually coming to Copenhagen to speak with Uffe Elbæk at the end of August to discuss Uffe's future work in the USA.

The Unreasonable Institute http://www.unreasonableinstitute.org/ is currently in talks with Uffe about forming a collaboration to teach social entreprenuers in the near future.

Uffe also has a large following in Asia as a leadership coach.

Uffe Elbæk is currently making the transition from Europe to the USA and despite most of the material about him being in Danish, Uffe Elbæk was the CEO of the World Outgames 2009 securing him as a notable figure in the gay community as well as having three published books to his name. Two are available in English: (KaosPilot A – Z, KaosPilot, KaosPilot – a personal story about a school, an education and a community) and is in the process of getting his most recent book “Leadership On The Edge” translated into English and published in the USA.

Currently it is a misfortune to not have Uffe Elbæk defined in wikipedia as I believe many young social entreprenuers could benefit from his approach to solving some of the main problems facing young people who seek to get a higher education but demand real experience from the field and less craming their faces into books written by academics with little practical field experience.

The school that Uffe Elbæk created offers a unique education to students from across the globe and teaches in English. I myself recieved my education from a Business School and found it to be insanely boring and dull but had I known about The Kaos Pilots when I was searching for schools then I would have most definetly have applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javileco (talk • contribs) 08:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

--Javier Leocadio Colon 09:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting, but I don't see it addresses the question of lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. The way to do so is to provide suitable independent reliable sources about Uffe Elbæk. If you can do that then there will be no problem with having an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson,

1. The articles do not describe a "business" that Uffe set up... he did in fact create a university.

2. Your asking me for suitable independent reliable sources... I have provided you with links to one of the leading USA business magazines mentioning a new university created by Uffe Elbæk, two Canadian sources, a very large Dutch magazine, and two links from the UK.

How are those not suitable independent reliable sources???

I am currently seeking articles in Asian magazines to prove to you Uffe's global reach... but you won't be able to read them unfortunately.

Can I get the opinion of another person besides you? I actually resubmitted my entry to get approval by more people but it seems to have vanished. I am still learning how to use this stuff.

--Javier Leocadio Colon 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I can find anywhere contradicts my impression that "KAOSPilot" is a privately owned business, though trying to find unambiguous objective information is difficult, as searching their own website I find myself swamped by large swathes of promotional verbiage and gimmicky website presentation. Incidentally, please do not rearrange posts on my talk page. If I choose to have any arrangement other than the default one then I will introduce it myself. Finally, please do not remove or alter content of comments on my talk page, apart from reverting unambiguous vandalism or corrections to your own comments immediately after posting them. Also please do not make changes to the dates of signatures on posts. It is always possible to find the true time stamp for any edit by searching in the page's edit history, but it is much easier if it is visible on the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello JamesBWatson,

I was having difficulty reading these responses... so I thought I would just space them out. I didnt realize all the codes for different styles.

Well now I realize that in order for me to get Uffe Elbæk considered worthy of notice, that I will also have to get The Kaos Pilots worthy of notice. I am currently working on a list of credible resources to state that The Kaos Pilots is a business school and not a private business or gimmick and worthy of recognition and that Uffe Elbæk rightfully deserves mention as the founder of the school on Wikipedia.

--Javier Leocadio Colon 10:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javileco (talk • contribs)

Being a business school is not at all inconsistent with being a private business. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• You will also have an uphill struggle with an article about KaosPilots. We have: KaosPilots International and KaosPilot deleted as spam - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KaosPilots International - and KaosPilot (school) deleted as a crude copyvio. I note that the articles on the Dansk Wikipedia: da:Uffe Elbæk and da:KaosPiloterne (Google translate) have both been around for some time - but on the basis of their references, neither would survive very long on the English Wikipedia. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 11:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Political Risk Services

Do not think you were right deleting Political Risk Services. I'm not fluent in English, but the PRS Inc. is a really important and the only agency issuing 100 reports on political risks for foreing business in different countries. You killed two hours of my job (and of my life). --Perohanych (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you show evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources? If you can, so that it looks as though it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then I will happily restore the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Their reports are used by

• WorldBank - http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/PRS.xls
• Universities - http://einstein.library.emory.edu/PRS-Data.html and many others
• Newsweek - the link was in deleted article

Just Google "Political Risk Services" --Perohanych (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

None of those is substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Jasmere.com

Hi. I believe an error was made regarding the removal of Jasmere.com. The primary reason cited was G4 (recreation of a deleted page). This version of the page is substantially different than the last page. The last version was horrible -- no real sources, only blogs. This page has numerous credible sources. Several prominent newspapers and magazines as well as several long clips on local TV news segments across the country. I feel that Jasmere.com is notable. I also think that it is not "exclusively" promotional (G11). While one or two sentences could appear promotional, I feel the overall piece is encyclopedic. And I do believe there are negatives of the site, as I have a section dealing with shopping addiction. Thank you very much for your consideration. Jeff Jbernfeld (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I did check references before deleting the article, and I have now gone back and had another look at them. It is certainly true that there were far more references cited in the latest version than in the version at the time of the AfD. However, many of them are Wikipedia articles. Some of them are dead links. Some of them appear at a quick look to be pages on the general subject, but not mentioning Jasmere.com. Some give brief mentions of Jasmere.com. In short, although you have put a good deal of work into giving a larger number of references, unfortunately you have not dealt with the essential problem which led to the initial deletion, which was the lack of suitable sources to indicate satisfying the notability guidelines. I have also done a brief search myself, and nothing of what I found was from reliable third party sources. Unfortunately I have to conclude that the company almost certainly does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate you having another look. But I wanted to point out a few more things. None of the 27 sources are Wikipedia articles. As part of the overall source, they do link to a Wikipedia page. But every single one of the 27 sources is a 3rd party, not Wikipedia. I might be misunderstanding the point you made and apologize if I did so. Sources 15 & 16 are actual columns in the print (not online) editions where I note the issue and page number, so that may have been why you thought they were only linking to Wikipedia pages. Also, you talk about dead links. There is only one dead link (but it is sourced in two places). The article was just there last week because I checked all of them, but that newspaper site must have taken it down. Another issue is that most of the 27 sources are several minute long local news segments. Jasmere is prominently mentioned in virtually all of these newscasts. These local news segments are 13 of the sources (with some duplication). They really do talk about Jasmere extensively. Yes, a few of the sources (8, 20, and 22) are just brief mentions, but they are in huge publications such as the San Francisco Chronicle and Real Simple magazine. I hope you will take the time to watch some of the news segments to see how prominently mentioned this site is throughout the country. Thank you very much for considering this. Please let me know what you think. Jeff Jbernfeld (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I see now that there was a problem with the format of the citations you gave. For example, for one of them the actual text you inserted into the source of the article was {{cite web|url=http://www.wivb.com/dpp/money/Savings-4-you-Jasmerecom|title=[[WIVB-TV]], Buffalo, NY, May 26, 2010 }}. In the list of references this showed up as "WIVB-TV, Buffalo, NY, May 26, 2010", with the actual link to the web site invisible. From the reference as it was listed there was no way of knowing that it referred to that web page. The link which was visible was a link to a Wikipedia article. Confronted with a long list of references I simply clicked on the links and got, in many cases, Wikipedia articles, so I thought that was what the references were. I have now looked back at the references cited, and checked most of them. First of all, although the list of references has numbers from 1 to 27, there are fewer than 27 sources, as some of them are repeated. (For example, http://www.wusa9.com/money/story.aspx?storyid=95733&catid=284 occurs twice, and so does http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6I64L88juY.) Next, of the ones I checked, one (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100528/FEATURES/5280319/-1/EXTRAS03/Online+Obsessive+%7C+Jasmere.com+finds+the+discounts) is a dead link. Next, there are pages such as http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/13/LV6A1DJP0T.DTL, which gives a mention of jasmere.com along with other sites, but does not give substantial coverage to jasmere.com. So does http://www.retail-merchandiser.com/current/774-social-butterflies.html, and the name of the site ("retail-merchandiser.com") also pretty clearly labels this as promotion. Finally we have a load of links to video clips which are totally promotional in character. It is true that many, perhaps all, of these, appear to be taken from broadcasts of local commercial television stations. However, all of the ones I have looked at have been a type of item which seems to be common in certain types of American television "news" broadcasting, which is essentially commercial, being not unlike a broadcast equivalent of the practice of newspapers writing up press releases as "articles". My own view is that these broadcasts are totally promotional in character, and they do little to establish the notability of the subject of the article. Nevertheless, I accept that it is not as clear-cut as I previously thought, and so if this were the only issue I would (reluctantly) restore the article. However, this is not the only issue, as the article still reads as promotional in character. Including a token two-sentence paragraph mentioning the concept of "Shopping Addiction" does not alter the essentially promotional tone of the article as a whole. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jasmere.com

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jasmere.com. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jbernfeld (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Dongling District Disconnected (The Buzzhorn album) Andie Tong Cossack Mamay B.A.T. Moothakurichi Rocko (rapper) BlackBerry Charm Technical University of Łódź Chozhia Vellalar I Wanna Be Loved by You Andrew Fields Feitian Technologies Co., Ltd. Polish census of 2002 E-mu Proteus X Common-mode interference Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fátima Arunattu Vellalar Dongling Vibration

Cleanup Drake (entertainer) Institute of plant biotechnology and biology Eschatology Merge BlackBerry Curve 8500 BlackBerry Curve 8900 Murakami-Wolf-Swenson Add Sources Icons.com IPod Touch Stewart McKenny Wikify Philippine Basketball Portal Kanyakubja Brahmins The Portugal News Expand Index of biotechnology articles Christopher Sequeira Stilesville, Indiana

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from erasing wikipedia articles

Indeed, The Philip Schneider article was deleted in the past after a vote was cast, WITHOUT a majoriry for the deletion. since then, the article has been recreated with better content and by other users. Moreover, Having erased an article in the past (for no good reason) is no reason to re-erase it it the future. Since now, it's gone (by your personal decree, with no deleltion vote) all content has been lost.

Personally, I fail to see why some people seem to have nothing better to do than to destroy articles instead of bettering them.

I respectuflly request that you restore the information you have destroyed. if you have specific claims to it's content you may use the discussion page. --Namaste@^? 23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no vote. On English Wikipedia deletion discussions are decided not by voting, but by an administrator's assessment of the value of the arguments advanced. In this case we had such arguments as "there's gotta be a reason to keep an article about someone who claims to have done top secret underground government work... isn't there?" So presumably if I claim to to have done top secret underground government work then I can have a Wikipedia article about myself. (Incidentally, even if you think that a vote, including such nonsensical ones, would be a better way to decide deletion discussions, there was a majority for deletion: four, including the nominator, for delete, and three in favour of keep.) You say "the article has been recreated with better content". What is "better" is a matter of opinion, but that is irrelevant, because when I assessed the speedy deletion nomination my job was not to make that judgement, but to decide whether the issues which led to deletion had been addressed. They clearly had not, as there was not a single reliable source cited. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a serious reply. re-erasing an article because you have decided to erase it before is not a valid cause. moreover, if you wish more sources to be found (there are dosens of them all around the UFO community), you may ASK for them. destroying a work done by many collaborating individuals over weeks and months just because you personally dont agree with it is a blatant abuse of power. I mean, you can also nominate AfD by your self, see the vote, discount it, and erase it your self all over again.

some sources were the local Police who shot him dead, others were navy officers.

I can see by your talk page, that this is an almost common move on your behalf, and would hate to call names on arbitrations. please restore it, and place your request in a civil manner.

Besides, no one can really tell the differences between the articles' content once you have destroyed all copies of it.

we are all here by good faith, ands some believe that Admins are here to facilitate contributers to better articles. so, please help us do this work. Thank You.--Namaste@^? 13:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You refer to "destroying a work ... just because you personally dont agree with it". However, that was not the reason for deletion. In fact I do not know enough about the subject to have a personal opinion. Wikipedia guidelines specify that if an article has been deleted as a result of a deletion discussion and then re-created, without the issue which led to deletion being addressed, then it should be speedily deleted. I was implementing that guideline, and personal opinion did not come into it. You say "re-erasing an article because you have decided to erase it before is not a valid cause". There you are expressing disagreement with a Wikipedia guideline. You are free to suggest changes to that guideline if you wish, but as long as that is what the guideline says, there will not be much mileage in criticising an individual for acting in accordance it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. if you'd like to get even more beurocratic, please answer me this. if an article was erased via reason x, and y weeks later was recreated by another user who did not know about the said reason nor participated in it's discussion, and have alternative content that may address reason x, is it not so that by wiki guidlelines (not laws, I remind you. guidelines for beter community incorportaion) the article should be reviewed? what is y so that an article that was erased in prehistory to have any chance of being recreated to achieve the so called conclusion of x?--Namaste@^? 17:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You ask me to answer if I'd like "to get even more beurocratic". I don't wish to get bureaucratic at all, but even so I will try to answer. I am not sure what you mean by "the article should be reviewed", but if you mean that it should be checked to see whether it has successfully addressed the issues which led to deletion, then the answer is "yes", and I did so. The AfD was based on lack of notability and verifiability. As I have already said above, the new version of the article contained no reliable sources, so it certainly did not address those issues. As for your final sentence, I'm afraid I don't understand it, but if you will clarify it for me I will consider whether I can answer it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Real Content of Bandar Seri Alam

Dear Admin - JamesBWatson,

I would like to inform you that the page you deleted (that I had created yesterday) is the real info about Bandar Seri Alam. Current 'Bandar Sri Alam' is created by someone who we didnt know. And the info is incomplete. eg: the name of the Township is Bandar Seri Alam - not Bandar Sri Alam.

FYI, Bandar Seri Alam is a Township developed by Seri Alam Properties Sdn Bhd (SAP) (subsidiary of UMLand Berhad - one of main Developer in Malaysia). I am working in SAP now and my duty is to update info about this township on Wikipedia.

I would like to request from you to delete/remove page of 'Bandar Sri Alam' - the previous one. And please put back the latest page that I created yesterday Bandar Seri Alam, Johor Bahru on Wikipedia.

Another thing, how can I make it official page for my company and nobody else can edit the page except designated personnel from my company only. Help me please.

For further clearance or query, kindly contact me at:

• Name: Hazmin Chamili (Public Relations Department)
• Contact: +60162651125 (mobile) +6073881111 (office) ext 101
• Email: hazmin@umland.com.my

Yours sincerely,

• Hazmin Chamili —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialam (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want an official page for your company which nobody else can edit then your company can set up a website to host such a page. Wikipedia is not the place for such a page. Wikipedia's policy is that nobody owns a Wikipedia article, and articles do not exist to promote the preferred view of a particular person or organisation. Since you say you are working for the company involved, you probably should not be editing articles on the subject at all, as you have a conflict of interest. This is particularly so since you have expressed the wish to impose your company's view and suppress contributions from anyone else. The reason given for deletion was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", and it is clear that that is your intention. Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is against Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply

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

Sara-rockworth (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Page _wikiread_ - Deleted

Dear Mr. James Watson,

This is regarding the page related to http://wikiread.fidenz.com. Even though I have explained the product, existence of our organization and the web site, you have selected to delete the page. Our web application's functionality is real and we are working on improving it further. The automated message says the content and the title are not matching but I quiet disagree with that. We like to know the exact reason for it to be deleted. If it is anything to do with its name (wikiread), we are happy to change it. But we wanted to give the due respect to MediaWiki org for being the only source for our application.

You can contact me on info@fidenz.com or chim@fidenz.com for any clarifications or details.

Thanks for your valuable time.

Best Regards Chim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.94.220 (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not doubt the existence of the web site: in fact I know full well that it exists, as I looked at it before deciding to delete the article. It is true that another editor had tagged the article as a hoax, but this was irrelevant to the deletion, as the article was clearly not a hoax. However, the fact that something really exists is not sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article about it: you may like to look at Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. The reason for deletion given in the deletion log was that the article "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I suggest looking at the notability guidelines to see what is needed. Finally, I know nothing about an "automated message" which "says the content and the title are not matching". If you can tell me exactly where this message is I will look at it and see if I can explain it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cobone - Deleted

Hey James,

I would like to get an indication on why Cobone was deleted while other companies who are within the same field can get pages. I'm quite new to Wikipedia and I'd like to get pointers on where the article fell short and how we can improve the page in order for it to become legit and exist without any issues. We ultimately do want the information on here and I believe we provided adequate press information on the company's business.

Please feel free to contact me on joe.akkawi@pazmarketing.com if you require further details.

Thanks for your time!

Best Regards, Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeakkawi (talk • contribs) 07:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason given for deletion in the deletion log was "Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". There was certainly no indication of significance in the article. In fact I'm not sure that there wasn't indication of lack of significance. What does "an internet start-up" mean? Does it mean, as I suspect, a newly started business which has not yet become prominent? To see what sort of thing is required to establish enough notability for an article have a look at the notability guidelines for companies, and the FAQ for businesses. The general notability guideline is also relevant. Comparison with articles about other companies is not very helpful, for two reasons. Firstly, they may be more notable by Wikipedia's criteria, and secondly it may be that they shouldn't have articles: see WP:OTHERSTUFF for an explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey James, Thanks for the update. Judging by this, I think we will need to revisit creating this article once the company has got more beef in terms of media coverage and maybe even revenue values to support the information. Internet Start Up is simply a term referring to an online based company. Also given the fact that the backing group of the business is the Middle East largest entrepreneurial digital hub, I would have imagined that this is enough credibility. The reference to other companies was just a comparison because I didn't see anything on around 10 articles of companies in the same filed that surpasses the information we submitted. Thanks for the information and I'll drop you a note once I get something sorted with more information. Maybe even a demo page before it going live to get your feedback. Cheers! Joeakkawi (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2010 (GMT)

WHY?

WTF why did you delete "the chill garden" page? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.180.86 (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The chill garden was deleted by another administrator, not me. If you mean another article you may like to tell me what article it is. And incidentally, repeating the same word numerous times in capitals is not a way to encourage anyone to take you seriously. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Lisa Christiansen

I made a move from Dr. Lisa Christiansen to Lisa Christiansen (motivational coach). Now there are two articles instead of one. Can this be fixed somehow? Your help is appreciated. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the situation as it was immediately after your move, leaving Dr. Lisa Christiansen as a redirect to Lisa Christiansen (motivational coach). I suggest leaving it like that until the AfD finishes. If the AfD closes as "delete" then they will presumably both be deleted, so it will make no difference. If it closes as "keep" then we can consider what is the best title for the article, and whether to delete one of the existing pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate your help. Cindamuse (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of My-worktime

Dear JamesBWatson

I’m writing you as I’ve noticed that my article “My-Worktime” has been removed with the code “G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion”. I’ve re-written the article from the user point of view using neutral statements and adding our appreciation.

Please let me know how to proceed to publish this new version and respect the G11 code.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seujet2010 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you put your draft for the article at User:Seujet2010/My-worktime. (If you click on that red-link a page will open up for you to create the page.) It will then be possible to get the page assessed before posting it as an article. If changes are needed then this should give you time to make them, without the risk of your work being deleted almost immediately (unless it is really blatant advertising, in which case it could still be subject to speedy deletion). However, I think it is only fair to warn you to check that the subject of the article actually satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as otherwise it will be likely to be deleted sooner or later. I saw no evidence in the previous version of the article of satisfying those guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I should also have mentioned Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, where you can ask for opinions on your draft article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Seujet2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dear James,

I understand James and I see better know why it was refused. We (me and my team) have been analyzing and using different time tracking tools since we created the company in June 2006 and we thought I could be interesting to help other small firms by pointing in the right direction.

The mistake we did is that we took the text as they have it in their website instead of writing a minimum of appraisal/evaluation on the tool itself, based on our experience using it.

Thanks for your feedback.

I will proceed as you suggest and change the structure and content of the article to remove their “marketing speech” and add our own experience, making sure we don’t influence others (factual).

Best,

Daniel

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Seujet2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

i put my draft for the article at User:Seujet2010/My-worktime thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seujet2010 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 August 2010

Hi JAmes

Ok fine. Then I feel that I should talk more about the technology that they are using and how easy it will be for the travelers if they use that technology, and will surely not talk about the company. But I've one more question, will it be fine If I use the same heading while recreating the article? Please reply me because I have to create the content as well. And do you want me to send the content first to you to get it checked by you, whether it is according to the guidelines or not, or should I directly post it on the wikipedia.

Please answer. Waiting for your reply :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VijVenus (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 August 2010

I have managed to work out that this must refer to ZapBooking.com. Writing "about how easy it will be for travellers using the technology" could well amount to promotion of the technology. If you recreate the article then it can be done under the same title, but please note that "if". I have made searches, and nothing I have found suggests that the web site satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if it doesn't then no matter how you rewrite the article or what you call it it will probably be deleted. I am certainly willing to check any draft article you may like to write and let you know what I think of it, but consider what I have said above before deciding to spend time on it. Do look at the general notability guideline and the business FAQ. (I know that the article was strictly about a web site, rather than about the business which owns the site, but it comes to much the same thing.) Also relevant are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Your first article, and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

123_(band)

hello there, i'm a new user of wiki. i'm from istanbul / turkey. there's a band here titled: 123 their web site is at: www.123theband.com they've released a CD/Book which was very much appreciated in turkey. i wanted to create an entry about the band and their releases but i've come to see that there were deletions of the same subject earlier. can i just proceed writing a proper entry or do i have to inform specific admin like you before i start doing so? looking forward to hearing from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfan hakan (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to inform anyone, you can just start an article. However, "you can just start an article" is not the same as "you should just start an article". I have looked at the band's web site, and I have also searched for them and their recordings on the internet. I have found myspace, blogspot, download sites, etc. I have not found anything at all to suggest that the band satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, and if it doesn't then any time and work spent on writing an article about it is likely to be wasted, as the article will probably be deleted. Unfortunately large number of people keen to publicise their bands put a lot of work into writing Wikipedia articles on them, only to suffer the frustration and disappointment of seeing them deleted. This band has already had articles written and deleted twice, and nothing I have seen suggests the same will not happen again if another article about them is written. There is nothing to stop you from writing another article about this band, but I really would not encourage you to do so, as I think it is almost certain to be a waste of your time. Sorry to be so discouraging, but really it is more of a kindness to warn you than to encourage you to go ahead and probably finish in disappointment. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

hello again dear james, the members of the band 123 did a project earlier called 'tamburada', i can see tamburada is in wiki with a very weak information, and there was nothing special at all with what tamburada achieved earlier, now with 123 they've evolved into a perfect band, they even got awards from the turkish press. what made tamburada stay in wiki do you think? can you have a look at that info too? thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfan hakan (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly natural for newcomers to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles, and think that if an article exists then another similar article has a right to exist. This is, however, a mistake, for reasons explained at WP:OTHERSTUFF. In this case you are quite right in thinking that Tamburada was no more valid as an article than 123 (band), and it has now been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The crystal mountain in egypt

I know it's a mess, but there is salvageable content about Crystal Mountain (Egypt). Would you mind if I undelete, harvest the wheat, and merge into Crystal Mountain (Egypt)? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The text of the article was a copy of what appears at http://www.b14643.de/Sahara/Crystal-Mountain/index.htm. (I should have checked for such copying before deleting, since it looked so much like a copy from somewhere.) Since this may well indicate a copyright infringement, I suggest it would be better to consult the text there if you want to, rather than undeleting the Wikipedia copy. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it read like a copyvio. Then I saw the note on the creator's page. Thanks also for the source link. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I invited the creator to rewrite, source and add to Crystal Mountain (Egypt). Dlohcierekim 14:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

List of state functions

You deleted List of state functions...could I get a userfied version at User:Smallman12q/List of state functions?Smallman12q (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The content of the article has been merged into State function#List of state functions, so you can get it from there. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 16:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

London Business School RFC

James,

My non technical friend is trying to set up our rugby club's wiki page. can you clarify why you deleted it, and how do I go about re-instating without the offending for so I can edit it.

Thank you Garryscott (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC) garryscott

I think that the likelihood of a college rugby club being notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article is very low, in which case the answer is that you can't. You may like to look at the notability guidelines, including the sports guideline to see what is required, and if, when you have done so, you decide that the club does satisfy the guidelines, then you can go ahead and recreate the article, providing reliable sources to justify it. However, it is only fair to warn you that, on the basis of the first version of the article, I think you are very unlikely to succeed in getting what you want, for several reasons:

1. I doubt that the club satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria.
2. The article was clearly aimed at potential members of the club, encouraging them to take part. This is not what an encyclopedia article is for: it is aimed at the general reader, and is there to provide objective information, not to promote membership.
3. If the article does become established, then it will be open to being edited by Wikipedia editors, and it will not remain as a mouthpiece for what the club wants to say to its members, which was clearly the intention.

In addition, Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage members of a club from writing or editing an article about that club, because their conflict of interest is likely to impair their ability to see the club from an impartial perspective, even if they genuinely intend to do so.

All in all I think you would stand a much better chance of achieving what you want by using either a free web hosting service, or a social networking site such as MySpace or Facebook. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply

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

User:Raktoner/The Word Alive

About the "The Word Alive" page...yes indeed I was using it as a template page, but I don't remember having linked it to other articles (perhaps other people had done that for me, though I don't know how they found the page in the first place). The only other article I personally linked it to was a talk page, where I was showing an example of template pages. I'm not asking for the article to be remade, as this happened a few weeks ago. I just thought I should let you know.

A question I do have though, will the article be remade once Deceiver, The Word Alive's first full length, comes out? Because I'm pretty sure by then they'll have fulfilled requirements. --Raktoner (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That depends on whether it satisfies the notability guidelines, as at WP:Notability and WP:MUSIC. However, for an article which has been deleted 8 times, and had 3 AfDs, I should think you would need to have pretty solid evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you seem to know what you're doing, a lot more than I do for sure. I'd like to ask a favor of you, and that is to check out things a little after August 31st, when their album comes out, because I'm sure you'll know if they're suitable or not. As much as I'd love to do it personally, I get the feeling I'll only get it rejected and create even more of a problem for creating this article. --Raktoner (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Remind me when August 31st has gone, and I'll have a look. Obviously I can't promise what the outcome will be, but I can promise to look at it for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian Morecraft redirect

Hi, that shouldn't have been deleted. That redirect was formed after discussion between myself and former member (and admin) Accounting4Taste and was mutually agreed upon to stop people from creating the article when he doesn't warrant one just yet. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I realised that. However, it had not stopped people from creating the article, and when I deleted it was an article again, not a redirect. In fact as far as I can see having a redirect makes it easier for an article to be created, because an IP editor or unconfirmed editor can create it. I though it better to delete it than to restore the redirect, only to see it turned back into an article. I can undelete it if you like, or just recreate the redirect, or recreate the redirect and protect it. As far as I can see the last of those is the only one that would do anything to prevent re-creation. Any opinion? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't aware it was an article again. I do see your logic, it's just frustrating that this has amped up the deleted edits again despite the conversation I had with that admin. I trust your judgement though, so I'll leave you to what is best. I just thought I'd mention it since I saw the deletion.

As a sidenote, I know you're swamped from looking at your talk page, but did you ever come to a conclusion regarding the report I filed at my talk page (the Georgia vandal)? Paralympiakos (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply at User_Talk:Paralympiakos JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Northern smoke DELETION?????

i am wondering why i wasnt allowed to continue working on this article it was flagged for speedy deletion not even ten minutes after i typed the first paragraph. i wasnt even finished and it was deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travislilley (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right in saying it wasn't ten minutes after you typed the first paragraph. You created the article at 13:09, and it was deleted at 13:50, which makes it 41 minutes. However, I am not sure why you are telling me about this. The article was deleted by KFP. My only involvement was to explain to you that the way to ask for the article to not be deleted was to add a {{hangon}} tag and explain why on the talk page, rather than removing the speedy deletion tag. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct i did work on the file for 41 minutes. I am overly impressed you can tell time however i had the notification for deletion after i hit save the first time. i guess i was misinformed that saving was an illegal play till refrences went up MY BAD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travislilley (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actress Kim Min Deletion?

Kim_Min

Hi there, would you please restore my deleted article or move it into my own name space. I think I'm asking for the correct thing. I was filling out the main cast for The_Accidental_Spy. I saw one actor Cheung_Tat-Ming had a small page with little notability other than he is an actor with a couple of films under his belt. Could not a page on Kim Min be equally notable and exist?

If you have time could you share what to fix on the article?

Thank you

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkremmer (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 August 2010

I have userfied this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

EXTENSION

Thank you for the guidelines. Can you please view my talk page for EXTENSION, INC.?

1. REDIRECT User:Khostetler/EXTENSION, INC.

Kelsey Hostetler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khostetler (talk • contribs) 16:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

University College Hockey Club

I know that you have delete this once today, can you have a look at the re-creation.

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately another administrator had already deleted it before I saw your message. However, I think that what you are trying to do is outside Wikipedia's terms. The whole nature of what you have tried to do is inconsistent with the purpose of Wikipedia, as other editors tried to explain to you on the article's talk page. You are in effect trying to use Wikipedia as a web host for your college team, rather than to write an objective encyclopaedia article. I think you would be better off putting the page on a web host or social network site, rather than on Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You miss understand - I nom'ed it for CSD both times ! (along with AfD'ing the football team Castle Football :-) (BTW - agree with what it looks like they are doing though!)Codf1977 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I did misunderstand. Thanks for pointing this out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Zoohouse's talk page.
Message added 19:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User NovaSkola

Good evening. I've made such request on the other discussion page of administrator, but I'm nit sure that I can have an answer from him. Explain to me please if this is normal behavior? NovaSkola reverted my edit as vandalism, while I've filled interwikies, native name in both languages and I've mentioned that fortress is situated in disputed area which is under control of the NKR. It is not the first such behavior of this user. Thanks --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What you did as vandalism doesn't look like vandalism to me. However, another editor has reverted to your version, and it has been left at that, so I don't think we need to worry too much about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Lisa Christiansen AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Lisa Christiansen

I am requesting that you consider reviewing the above mentioned article and consider recommending that the article is kept, based on copyediting and established notability. I initially opposed the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia due to blatant promotional tone. The article is no longer written in a promotional tone and cannot be considered spam. The article was copy edited, but still lacked content establishing her notability.

After extensive work on the article, review of her books, and research of books and magazines that mention her, I realized that notability is established, based on the fact that a book has been written entirely about her. WP:BASIC states:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

The book, Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan, was written in 1974, independent of any involvement by Christiansen, published by the Cherokee Nation, with copies in the Library of Congress, which includes this book and noted in their catalog and listings. Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee is Christiansen's native Cherokee name given at birth.

I am now recommending that this article be kept, due to established notability as the subject of a published book, reliable and independent of the subject. Christiansen was eight years old when this book was written. Her notability was established according to the Nation upon the death of her mother, since Christiansen was then the last surviving descendant of Sequoyah. I would like to invite you to review the article and consider recommending that the article is kept, based on corresponding criteria WP:BASIC that establishes notability. It is my opinion that the article needs additional references. However, notability according to policy has now been established. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentry McCreary (2)

Following a brief discussion on IRC with User:Jamesofur, do you think it would be OK to undelete this page? I know the user was socking, and that he's been rather uncooperative and accusative at certain points (including to OTRS, apparently), but the person is notable enough to me and the only reason was G5 (I think the spam and copyvio parts have been removed and such, and it was his originally his own writing, anyway). Probably unblocking the user wouldn't end up well after a while, but I think the page can be salvageable. Is that OK with you? —fetch·comms 18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I tend to take the line that blocked users should be prevented from getting their way if they try to get round their blocks, in order to discourage them from trying in the future to do the same again. However, I don't see anything really bad about the latest version of the article, so I won't object if you want to undelete it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I will undelete it, but if they end up making another account, I won't be so lenient on whatever they might choose to write next. —fetch·comms 20:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Galindo

Why the heck did you delete Samuel Galindo's page? That was absolutely pointless because even though he hasn't made a first team appearance yet, he made an appearance for the Boivian national team so the article should've been kept. – Michael (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As you will see from the deletion log, I deleted it because it was a repost of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Nothing at all in the article indicated that there had been any change affecting the reasons for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of My-worktime (follow-up)

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

Hello James,

our last post as of 15:44, 19 August 2010 : ... i put my draft for the article at User:Seujet2010/My-worktime thanks, added by Seujet2010 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 August 2010 ...

we have no answer from you, so we try to add a new article in the hope that it will comply

thanks, Daniel

My-worktime

Hi JamesBWatson! Excuse me for being nosy, but I was wondering what this is about. Thanks, WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 12:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look above at the section Deletion of My-worktime you will see about as much as I can tell you about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at 141.211.222.213's talk page.
Message added 07:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Harass anybody lately?

Good to see you Huggle patrolling, knowing all that admin-ing isn't going to your head. I've been more low-impact lately owing to some other obligations, but hope to be doing the 0 hour vandal patrols again soon. See ya there. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Huggle patrolling can be less stressful than some kinds of admin-stuff. Even blocking vandals that come up on Huggle doesn't produce a string of "how dare you do something I didn't like, (such as deleting my vanity article on my garage band)" messages. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which... you deleted my band's article.....Shadowjams (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That was probably because of a personal vendetta against you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

hahaha. I deserve that :P Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ARV Contrib bug

The ip I reported a few minutes ago DOES have edits. It looks like there might be a bug. check my contribs for the reverts I did on the ip. Not sure why it's not showing up.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this was 80.222.122.229, who edited 80.222.122.209's talk page. I have blocked 80.222.122.229, and I will delete 80.222.122.209's talk page, since there is no such user. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Had an edit conflict when I caught the update at ARV. Thanks for checking it out, I appreciate it. I thought I was going crazy for a minute.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ARV? AIV, perhaps? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Brown note

HI. could you take another look at this pleas? I think it is a cleverly contrived hoax. Let me know what you think. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's probably not a hoax, but it seems to be an account of an inadequately sourced and totally non-notable myth, and I wouldn't oppose a PROD if you want to make one. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. You may wish to support it with a {{tl|prod|2}} template. --Kudpung (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

the prostetute theory deletion

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

you have deleted my new addition to wikkipedia, which was a serious entry under the assumtion that it is a hoax of some sort. it is not...It is a valid point of veiw that was enetered in order to communicate with the world. please reinstate the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danspeede (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2010

Oh yes? The article gave no sources, a Google search for "prostetute theory" gives precisely one hit (the deleted Wikipedia article), but provide me with sources and I will consider undeleting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, for anyone who knows how to spell who reads this, I can save you the trouble of searching: a Google search for "Shay Shvartzman" "prostitute theory" gives no hits at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

=-)

Ahoy! Just a friendly note, looks like you may have overlooked putting a block notice on this page. :-)   Thorncrag  23:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Truthiracy

My Truthiracy word was already accepted, why now did you decide to delete it? What word do we have that describes a conspiracy that becomes the truth? We don't, and that's why we need this word to be accepted. The Enron conspiracy became a truthiracy. Who pressured you to remove it? Christopher Lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthiracy (talk • contribs) 03:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this. The only ways I can think of that you know I deleted it is that you have seen either the deletion log or the closure notice on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Truthiracy. In either case you will have seen that the reason given for deletion was copyright infringement, yet none of what you say above has anything to do with copyright. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance PLEASE!

James (I know that's not your real name based on your user page but I wouldn't know how else to address you)... :-), I know we disagreed on Lisa Christiansen article. However, if you look at my information on my user page Sara-rockworth (talk · contribs), I think you will see my intention's are real for being here.

One of the articles I did some minor edits on was the social media article. Well, Flowanda (talk · contribs) who the was one of the people who was bashing the Christiansen article, has removed everything I wrote in social media citing "poor sourcing" as the reason. My sources were http://mprcenter.org and the European Journal of Social Psychology. And there were no "outlandish claims" in my edits as she also used as a reason.

I understand I didn't do my homework well enough before writing my first full article on Christiansen. But I am not Christiansen - or related to Christiansen somehow - either. I just didn't make a good first attempt and I didn't know of all the drama that had come before my submission as because of the way I originally entered the title, nothing else came up. Well, Flowanda (talk · contribs) was more than harsh on the Christiansen article and even implied to another editor that she knew some deep dark secret about me. Well, I can tell you that's not true because there is no deep dark secret I am hiding.

Since I know you and I didn't agree before either, I thought I would ask you to review her removal of my edits on social media. Since, if you think they are valid, they obviously would be. If you think they are merited, then I will accept that as well. I did review this other editor's talk page and she gets attacked on there pretty frequently for this same behavior. Sara-rockworth (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the part of it you wrote was actually better sourced than most of the article. The rest of the article is, in my opinion, very poor in several respects, and your section too is by no means perfect. However, removing that one section on grounds of poor sourcing while leaving other sections with poorer or (in the case of one section) no sources, does not seem to me the best way forward. As for the "deep dark secret", I cannot find that suggestion anywhere, and unless it was a really serious accusation I suggest dropping the matter. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply Of course we can move on and I am through with acting like a toddler. There is no dark secret so I can definitely drop that. I am not concerned about that other than to show that for some reason, she or he appears to be tracking what I do and making arbitrary changes. Nonethless, I can most certainly drop that for now so long as it doesn't continue. For this article, thank you for your honest remarks. I wanted to really dive in and edit this entire piece but was concerned about COI even though I do participate in Wikipedia using a pen name and don't link anywhere to my my writings (which are mostly text-based and not able to sourced on the Internet anyway). Would it be inappropriate for me to work on this entire definition if I also teach a course in an academic setting on social media? I currently write under a pen name in here that only one person knows as tied to my real name. Would that be a COI? Sara-rockworth (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi - Thank You!

Thank you for deleting my page... i was unsure what to really write about him.. since he is a really new person.. and i understand.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunhawken (talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)