User talk:JBW

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Query about value + propriety of contribution

James, I need an eagle eye for this one. I'd like to enter into the list of rings for the finger the Jewish 5 metals ring Ring (jewellery), and have a photo that is safe to utilise without copyvio - my problem is knowing whether you think this cuts the mustard as an entry on that list. I have contributed heavily to the list itself, but now I've lost confidence. Will you look this over for me?

The intended entry will include this text and a copyvio-safe image of the ring (since it is an image taken of my personal ring, but this does not violate WP:OR):

Five Metals ring is suggested by the TALMUD in order to grant additional favors to the wearer. Five metals mined from the earth (gold, silver, copper, tin and lead) are to be joined but not alloyed into a ring. It can only be manufactured once a month, "when the moon is in Jupiter", over a five-hour period from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. This has commonly taken the form of a sterling silver ring with tablets of gold, tin, lead and copper set into the bezel. The Talmud states, "Bear [the ring] upon thee, and thou shalt see miracles." From the Talmud, Sefer Refuach Va Chaim (The Book of Spirit and Life)

ThanksDjathinkimacowboy 01:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

At present, as far as I can see, there is nothing about the five metals rings in the article, but I see no reason why you shouldn't add a brief mention of it, and a picture to illustrate it. In fact, I think it would be a good idea. The one possible problem would be finding a reliable source. A very quick glance through a Google search certainly confirmed the existence of five metals rings, but mostly I found either commercial sites advertising the rings, or pages which are obviously not reliable sources, such as FaceBook. However, there were a few pages that look as though they may possibly be better, such as this one. A Google books search here produces a few books which I should think are reliable sources, but I have not taken the time to check what they actually say about the rings. You may like to do that. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Watson, yes, that talisman site is very good and is typical of the informative sites I read through - but I wondered whether the Talmud would be sufficient as a citation. After all, it is in the Talmud's "Sefer Refuach" was we call it that the original passage is found. However, a problem in the Talmud research often yields the famous debate between one rabbi and Rabbi Akiva; it debates the nature of a ring and its relation to the Sabbath. Rabbi Akiva concluded that if a ring be plain, that is, not a seal ring, it is an ornament and if it is a seal then it is classified as a "burden" - which is forbidden on the Sabbath. So that is a dead end as far as the 5 metals ring lore.17:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)©Djathinkimacowboy 17:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I can't really help you on the sort of thing you are referring to. I know nothing about the subject, and had never even heard of the five metals ring until you posted here. All I have to go on is what I saw in a couple of quick Google searches, and even my comments about the reliability of the sources are based only on a quick glance. However, my suggestion is that you add a mention of the five metals ring, with something that looks to you like a good source, and your picture. The worst that is likely to happen is that someone else disagrees with you about the source, and removes it. It's not the kind of editing that anyone can reasonably regard as vandalism or anything of the sort. If someone does contest the edit (and my guess is that they won't), you have the option of either dropping the matter and moving on, or politely explaining why you disagree. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, I was forgetful in checking on your reply here. Watson, it's a great suggestion and when I have a moment to do so, I will follow it. I was thinking it works better if one reinforces something with two citations, which I'm certain I can scrounge. The only trouble is, we have a few editors who seem to be opposed to a good list of rings, instead wanting to confine it to general types. They may have something to say about anything I try to add. In any case I thank you kindly.~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Wheel Spinners

The original Introduction and Legal arena served it's purpose for a very long time. As it stated, many in the legal community was watching this case of which I prevailed 100%. Removing the legal notice from Wikipedia didn't bother me at all and didn't even know I was in it as you should know after reading how you did a background search of me and knew about Heather. She is not a Wikipedia person either. We need and use more reliable sources. I personally fight for the "rights of the right" in all areas with all intellectual property. It was when this Clevid (a name something of that nature)started vandalizing the page for no other reason than to remove all information about THE inventor and patent holder of the modernday free spinning spinners, me. This all started over a creep (Clevid) my step-daughter met up with on Facebook and her brothers friend is the Srennipsurt and brought this to my attention. Now, I don't have time for this and could really care less as Wikipedia does not bolster me, especially with all the other profiles written about me as an American Inventor with over 100 inventions from Masonic Capron, Wall Street Journal, Legal Metric, Tech-EUROPE + + + + + + + + I could care less about Wikipedia, but when you start associating and passing """inaccurate information about my creations/inventions""""", you then involved me, my reputation and the creed and authenticity of 99 other inventions of mine! ........This is why I am writing you now.

Example, you didn't mind using the extensive "knowledge" given to you by Khris Kidd, but you sure don't want to mention the inventor that gave you this knowledge, ME! .....Yes! I came into Wikipedia using my friend's Khris's account as I have no Wikipedia account of my own, don't want one, don't need one, and I have now made "my point". Again, I made my point and that is it for me, but you have sure angered several people that know me by first allowing the vandalism to repeatedly take place and know disregarding the inventor as an integral part of the modern day free-spinning spinners in it's entirety.

So I will go on about my business as I have a very large power unit I am working on for 3rd world countries as I make many contribution to my fellow man. You can go on about your business editing and mis-informing Wikipedia readers with half-truths and incomplete information and taking credit for others reliable information. And I am real sure my children's friends will continue to go on about their business, even going against what I told them to do, stop it, drop it! Then they showed me that they had performed their own due diligence Googling "Wikipedia Sucks" and how 38% of people already know what we know. They seem to have it in their heads that 100% of the private sector needs to know. But I cannot prompt them on what to do no more than I can prompt you, so we have all chosen our own positions. Thank you for your time, J.D. Gragg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srennipsurt (talk • contribs) 12:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Srennipsurt, you are bloody bonkers!~©Djathinkimacowboy 23:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)--this was uncalled for and I retract it hereby. I apologise for inconveniences.~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, I just came back about this comment to say 'how professional of you', but I now see you have some sense and retracted it. So my statement 'WAS' going to be, "you really should play someone as 'bonkers' a game of chess for 10K USD as I will fly anywhere, anytime to meet you to pursue it", but then I too realized that I was probably over reacting some. I will say that it seems that all the Wiki editors are not quite focused at the same objective as some THINK it is a dictionary and others seem to treat more as a 'partial' encyclopedia, only up to their ability of understanding similar to your methods. Example, Stephen Hawkings could correct his own 'string theory' and the Wiki crew wouldn't correct it until they read it in Popular Science! See my point? The same point I made when you all just LOVED the earlier day Wheel Spinner (Knock-offs) correction done under the name Khris Kidd which was actually ME using his account, so as you may see, it is not only us people on the outside of Wiki that carries a bias into an article. I must say though, most of you that I have met are a prime example of the Dunning-Krugar Effect, especially YOU! Please, do not confuse that ability of Wiki Coding to IQ. Here's your tides ~~J.D.Gragg~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srennipsurt (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

A sad thing to see

Watson, look here. It's a sad thing really. Sometimes I guess either one bites too hard or doesn't bite hard enough.~©Djathinkimacowboy 07:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I always thought, actually, that this would happen, probably sooner rather than later. However, I prefer to give people a chance to improve. Some people do take that chance, and I have known people who started out doing nothing but vandalism change their ways and become really good editors. Many don't, but not a lost is lost by giving them the chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps in future, this editor will find the great kindnesses as have been bestowed upon me! It seems if there was more of all that all the way round, even vandals would mend their ways here. Don't think I failed to note the very mean person who is arguing with you here over some sort of nonexistent invention....~©Djathinkimacowboy 23:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

New editor uploading inappropriate images

Hi there. A while ago you blocked a new editor for copyright violations. Unfortunately this editor has since continued to upload images without licensing or owner's permission, and placing them into Wikipedia articles. To make matters worse, this editor doesn't reply to messages left on her/his talk page. Could you please look into this issue? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsaim (talk • contribs) 08:28, 14 October 2012‎ Amsaim (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It should have been stopped months ago. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal photos to wikicommons

Watson dear chap, I am having a devil of a time uploading my personal photo of the ring I enquired you about--the uploading process I found asked for an originating site, permission, email with permission included, God knows what. How do I upload this image for free use here? By the bye, seen my entry at Ring (jewellery)? All that's wanted is the image....~©Djathinkimacowboy 22:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have only uploaded files fairly rarely, and when I have done so I have sometimes found the process confusing. However, as far as I can see, if you go to Commons::Commons:Upload and click the link at "It is entirely my own work", it doesn't look as though it asks for all that sort of stuff. (However, since I haven't got a file to upload right now, I haven't tried clicking the "Upload file" button, so I don't know if further questions then appear.) Have you tried that method? If not, I suggest giving it a try. If you do try that (or already have) and you still have problems, I suggest asking for help at the help desk, as there is bound to be someone there who knows more about image-uploading than I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Watson, many thanks for the heads-up. Yes, I tried uploading the photo and oh, the headache! I surrendered in despair. I will try anew. Thank you.~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A query to end confusion

Watson, a bit of bother here, which frankly does not bother me so much but it puts me in an irritable state of confusion. Is it all right, as User:DVdm claims to me, for an editor to simply come in and post whatever comment desired, stuck in whatever place suits that editor? Or does one post newer posts at the bottom of a thread? I honestly wish to know, because I favour the latter rule, but am told the former rule is just fine. Can you answer this?~©Djathinkimacowboy 22:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that DVdm claims that an editor can simply post "in whatever place suits that editor". As I read it, he/she is merely saying that, in the particular case in question, the particular posting was reasonable, which is not at all the same thing. In general, new posts go at the bottom. However, if post Z is a direct answer to post A, and posts C, D, E and F come after A and before Z, it can be difficult to follow the thread of a discussion, so usual practice is to put Z after A, but to indent it, to make it clear that it is attached to A, and that B does not relate back to it. (That is exactly what I am doing here: this message is a reply to yours beginning "Watson, a bit of bother", so it follows that post and is indented, while your next post, beginning "Forgive me, something much bigger", does not reply to that one or to this one, so I am removing your indentation. My reply to that post comes after it, and is indented.) In the case in question, the new post you objected to was an answer to an earlier post, and quite rightly was placed after it and indented. You pointed out that it came before your post, which also responded to the earlier post, so it might have been better to put the new one after yours. The only problem with that was that your post was not indented, so if the new post had been placed after yours and indented, it would have looked like a response to your post, which it wasn't, while if it had been placed after your post and not indented, it would not have been clear it related to the earlier one. The editor making the new post had two reasonable options: either indent your message and put his (equally indented) after yours, or put his, indented, before yours. The former might have been better, but I don't think we can fault him/her for choosing the latter. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the above: Watson, I appreciate you have made clear what DVdm could not. What I can say about that is those indentations are certainly worth a lot more than just keeping posts separate, hey? It sounds as if an editor can, indeed, inject something if he only indents it properly. It is a weird art that I will not even try to approach--what I mean is, I will indent for clarity as always but when I post, I will try to go to the end of a thread and quote the original issue if necessary, which is what we always used to do here. But I am happy that my own thread here gives us a chance to see it in action and gives me a chance to comprehend you. I thank you for that. By the way, I rectified that instance the same day, and apologised to both the editor in question and DVdm.~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pinky ring, article deletion

Forgive me, something much bigger has arisen. Pinky ring is a frankly stupid article, if one may call it that and I use the term loosely, that deserves deletion. I wish to do an AfD but have no idea how it's done. All I know is that thing looks like a prank, should not be there, and is addressed in the regular Ring (jewelry). Help!!~©Djathinkimacowboy 07:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have, quite rightly, removed some questionable unsourced content from the article. A Google search indicates that the expression "Pinky ring" does exist, with the meaning that the article gives it. The article is essentially due to an editor called "Ringmaster99", whose entire Wikipedia editing career consists of three edits to this article and uploading an image to use in it, all done in a period of less than 24 hours in December 2007. Before that, the page was a redirect to Engineer's Ring (itself an article that lacks independent sources). The article has never had much content, and what there has been has always been unsourced. It's not a very good article, really providing little if any useful information beyond a definition of what "pinky ring" means, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so you could make a reasonable case for deletion. Personally, I wouldn't bother, because, although I don't see a lot of point in the article, I don't see it does any harm. However, that is just my feeling, and if you want to pursue deletion you are, of course free to do so.

If you do want to suggest deletion, I would first try a PROD, and only resort to AfD if the PROD is contested. If you have never used a PROD before, first have a look at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to make sure you understand what it means. Making the deletion proposal is easy: just add {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=blaa blaa blaa}} to the top of the article, only replace "blaa blaa blaa" with your reason for proposed deletion. It is normally considered a courtesy to inform the author of the article. In the case of an editor who has not edited for nearly five years there is probably little point, though little is lost by doing so anyway.

If you do want to do an AfD, there are full instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion, but I don't recommend following those instructions, the process is a little complicated, and confusing if you are not used to it. A far easier method is to first install Twinkle, and then you will have a tab at the top of every Wikipedia page marked xfd. Using that tab will result in most of teh process being automated, making it much easier for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to the above: I'd seen that Ringmaster was busy, yet I somehow missed that Ringmaster 'began' the article as it is. Simply wasn't paying much attention. Whilst you and I agree to the full, I will leave it as it is. It seems no one cares one way or t'other...but it means a great deal that we agree about it.~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it seems to me Engineer's Ring might actually work if some editor would expand it to a degree and add citations, which are to be had aplenty. I suppose you've guessed at the little devil who will attend to it....So you probably have guessed the little devil who actually owns one (but I do not wear it).~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Watson, look [[1]]! User:Squeamish Ossifrage did a bang-up job. I don't see why it ought to be deleted at all now. I wish I'd had the time to do what that editor did here!~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It is my pleasure...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In recognition of, and with deep gratitude to, an exemplary, helpful, generous editor and admin. This is in lieu of an administrator's star, which should exist for admins like you, Watson!~©Djathinkimacowboy 23:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Tait

The Douglas_Tait_(stuntman) article that you sent an earlier version of to AfD was recreated earlier this year. I again sent it to AfD, but there was no consensus (largely because some editors relied on covereage in "articles" that have since been disavowed by the newspaper whose website they were posted on, so I think another AfD is a good idea). Anyway, the article again served as a promotional piece with many "references" to non-RSs, etc. My efforts to keep it from being used as that have been called into question by a disruptive IP. Would you mind taking a look at this ANI and posting you thoughts? Thanks. Novaseminary (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you may well be right about the essential issues involved. However, I am unwilling to put in the enormous amount of time and trouble that it would take to check this fully. My only connection with the article is that, more than two years ago, I happened upon an earlier version of it that did not seem to show notability, so I suggested it might be deleted. I have no particular interest in the article, no knowledge of its subject, and no wish to be dragged into the interminable argument that is at ANI. I am unwilling to comment without having read through the ANI discussion, because doing so would run the risk that I would make comments that were completely invalidated by what has already been said. The discussion is so long that simply reading it all would take a significant amount of my time, let alone following all the links and checking all the relevant history. Discussions at ANI are one of the aspects of Wikipedia that I find least useful, and I usually avoid them, especially interminable quarrels like this one. I am sorry that this will not be the answer you hoped for, Novaseminary, but this is not an issue I am willing to get involved in. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write. If the article is AfD'd again, and based on comments at the ANI I think it will be, I hope you will consider weighing in there in what should be a discrete discussion of whether the subject meets N. Happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A question--nothing more

Watson, I have been a bother and I apologise. However, I have a question for you that I think was answered by another admin many months ago, I'm just not certain. Is it possible for an admin to make hidden emendations to a post or hide edits from the edit history? (The answer I recall is "YES".) I ask because I am looking at some things, and I won't bother you with them, but they have been edited by someone else in the interim--yet it looks like no one has done anything. Words have been added here and there; someone wikified a word in a recent post of mine, which is something I would never have done with that particular word. As I said, I do not want to trouble the waters at all, but I am anxious to know. As to the changes, they have been positive and I thank Gd if there's a guardian angel doing them--but it makes me nervous because that "invisible editing" was occasionally used against me in the past during edit wars, you see. Also, I have noted a separate issue from my little pickle: someone is posting and is able to completely hide their identity. But I do not want to trouble you with that diff mainly because I'm not certain I can find it or recall where it is, but I read it carefully and it was spooky to me. Someone is posting unsigned at an article talk page and then expertly hiding their identity. Well, anything you can tell me is appreciated as always. You did me a very good turn with these last few problems with which I have pestered you.~©Djathinkimacowboy 22:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You ask "Is it possible for an admin to make hidden emendations to a post or hide edits from the edit history? " The short answer is that an admin can hide edits so that users can't read them, but not make "hidden emendations". An admin can use a process called revision deletion to make an edit invisible, but it still remains listed in the edit history, so you can tell there was an edit there. However, there is no way to change an existing edit so that it looks as though an editor did something different from what they really did. My guess is that you forgot what you did, even if it now seems highly improbable to you that you would ever have done it. To show you what revision deletion looks like, I have created a page at User:JamesBWatson/Revdel Illustration, edited it a few times, and then done some revision deletion to it. If you look at the page history, you will see that some edits are hidden. I have hidden the text at edit 5, but you can still see that I made an edit there. At edit 3 I have hidden who did the edit, and what edit summary was used, but you can still see what the edit was. Finally, for edit 7 I have hidden the content of the edit, who made the edit, and the edit summary. That is the maximum amount of hiding that an admin can so with revision deletion, and even then you can see from the page history that there was an edit, though not what the edit was. And there is no way I can change an edit so it looks as though it was different from what it really was: either I hide it so you can't see it, or I leave it as it was. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank heavens, Watson! I agree that it was something I did and completely forgot like the idiot I am, because with the examples you illustrated exactly what I saw: in short, nothing amiss and no "hole" where a mysterious edit might have been made later. As to it being faulty memory circuits in my so-called head, I know now because I checked most thoroughly. Both my head and the edits that had spooked me. Perhaps it's Alzheimer's? Though I am still wondering why editors escape with making posts and then making certain no one can see who posted it. That becomes annoying and I wilfully disregard those.~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And now for something completely irrelevant: Watson, I chuckled and just had to share with you in light of the personal retort I placed in an earlier section here: there is a user called User:Bonkers the Clown and the name is so cute it is still making me laugh. Well, there was a user by that name unless I got the spacing wrong or something....~©Djathinkimacowboy 22:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

He's here: User:Bonkers The Clown.~©Djathinkimacowboy

User:Shahdaan Khan

This guy is without doubt the sockmaster User:ABDEVILLIERS0007 (User:Mrpontiac1) who has been mass socking since at least 2009,[2] and keeps creating new accounts just to vandalise pages. He is Hindu but creates Pakistani Muslim names and he should be indef blocked. Thanks.--39.41.82.47 (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me what makes you believe this is the same person? If you can give really convincing evidence then I will block the account indefinitely. If you can give evidence which is reasonably suggestive but not conclusive then I will take this to a sockpuppet investigation and request a checkuser. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Notice the capital letters in the edit summaries and name [3] [4] . Another person suggested he is ABDEVILLIERS0007 [5]. On Afghanistan, confirmed sockpuppets of Mrpontiac1 constantly showed up to edit the same 1747-1818 Afghan-Sikh war stuff, defaming Afghans and glorifying Sikhs. Notice the google book link starts with "books.google.co.in" which suggests he's in India.[6] User:Theman244, who is also socking (i.e. User:Thejatt, User:Desijatt1), defaming Afghans and glorifying Sikhs, copy-pastes links with "books.google.co.in" [7] the same way as ABDEVILLIERS0007, Mrpontiac1, and the dozens of Mrpontiac1's confirmed socks.

Further, these confirmed socks of Mrpontiac1 have very similar names as ABDEVILLIERS0007, Desijatt1, Shahdaan Khan. (i.e. User:Desijattt [8] and User:ASHOKBINDUSARA). Shahdaan Khan is obviously a Muslim name (particularly Pakistani) but the operator is a Sikh/Hindu based on his edits and location, and he used many other sockpuppet names to try to pass as a Pakistani Muslim editor. [9] The bottom line is User:Shahdaan Khan and User:Theman244 are new undetected sockpuppets of the notorious sockmaster Mrpontiac1 and I think they should both be indef blocked.--39.41.82.47 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I have passed on your information to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1. You may wish to contribute there. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	(don't know what a Barnstar means) sorry if i violated anything i was just trying to update the page with the typography of one of the megan fox's image which i created myself using photoshop.I was unable to edit ,so i copied . i will delete it if you want as you are an admin. i'm new at wiki so help me show the right way. Rockers.vn (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Socks

The IP is User:Lagoo sab see [10] for style of writing. Shahdaan Khan is ABDEVILLIERS0007 based on the use of caps and this [11] [12] love of Hari Singh Nalwa. Hope this is of use to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

77.247.180.139 and more

I see you blocked 77.247.180.139 as a proxy. It's part of a commercial (VPN) proxy actually. Perhaps you would like to help with the rest? See discussion here. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Maria Sachs Article

I noticed that you have previously edited on this article. I have made some well sourced edits this morning on this account. While I do not claim neutrality, I attempted to scrub the post of any opinion or unsubstantiated facts. I am sure Ms. Sachs daughter will be trying to scrub the truthful information that puts her mother in a bad light.

I am asking for assistance in reviewing my edits and assigning somebody to maintain neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine Disinfects (talk • contribs) 10:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Bahai article

Dear James,

Completely understand. My only point is this paragraph:

"Bernard Lewis states that the Muslim laity and Islamic authorities have always had great difficulty in accommodating post-Islamic monotheistic religions such as the Bahá'í Faith, since the followers of such religions cannot be dismissed either as benighted heathens, like the polytheists of Asia and the animists of Africa, nor as outdated precursors, like the Jews and Christians. Moreover, their very existence presents a challenge to the Islamic doctrine of the finality of Muhammad's revelation.[146]"

Neither is this paragraph neutral and this assertion is also completely unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srhzaidi (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it not neutral? Is there some reason why we should not record the reaction that some Muslims make? Or is there some reason why we should not mention that a prominent historian has commented on the fact? Notice that dispassionately recording the fact that a prominent historian has mentioned the existence of certain opinions, without expressing any view as to the validity or otherwise of those opinions, is very different from what you have done, which is to insert your own, unsourced, opinions, stating them simply as facts. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Bioscience Resource Project COI tag

Can I ask you to be a little more specific with your recent tag? Do you feel that there is anything in the article that reflects a COI or is NPOV? That article went through a pretty extensive revision process before being accepted through the AfC process; pointing out specific problems you see with it would probably be more helpful to the editor who worked on it than a blanket tag. Sindinero (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with being more specific is that if there were easily defined specific problems then it would be easy to put them right, and I would not have had any reason to put a conflict of interest tag there at all. The article is certainly not still written in the blatantly promotional language that was used in the first drafts: if it had been, then I wouldn't have wasted my time on tagging it for conflict of interest, as speedy deletion would have been appropriate. Nor are there a few specific details that are clearly non-neutral: if there were then it would have been easy to have improved or removed the relevant bits. However, the whole thing has a general feel of being written to present the project from the point of view of those involved, and the overall impression is that it is written to tell us what the project sees as its own role. Yes, a number of editors have done a very good job of getting rid of the blatantly promotional language, such as "Through its innovative scientific journalism, original articles, and open access websites, the Project provides scientific and intellectual resources for a healthy and sustainable future." However, what remains, while not using such language, still seems to contain the same message, which is how the project would like to present itself. Immediately after the lead we see a section headed "Philosophy and Mission", which is nothing other than an attempt to promote the project's own preferred view of itself. (Indeed, I am not sure that the word "mission" is ever used by impartial outsiders to describe the aims of an organisation: if it is, then it is rarely so used. It's one of those PR words like "solution".) And so the article goes on. The wording has been substantially changed from the initial spam version, but the message hasn't. Going back to the issue of being "more specific", there have been successive attempts to have the conflict of interest template deleted, using the argument that one should always more precisely address the specific issues, rather than making a general comment about conflict of interest. However, one of the main reasons why each such deletion proposal has been rejected is that the template is useful precisely for those cases where it is not easy to be specific. It is not needed for the "My god! Here's someone using Wikipedia to post an advertisement!" cases, nor for the "Oh dear, this particular paragraph is not very neutral" cases, but it is useful for the "Hmm: I would be hard put to pin down specific details to single out, but the overall feel of this is that it is written to present the subject from an insider's point of view" cases. Although I have not been able to be very specific, I hope that my remarks have helped to give some sort of indication of what I think. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

After writing that, I noticed something very interesting. The very first sentence of the article describes it as "a public interest organization", and links to the article Public interest. The lead of that article says "While nearly everyone claims that aiding the common well-being or general welfare is positive, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly constitutes the public interest ..." Indeed so. So what does that say for the neutrality of the account in the lead of Bioscience Resource Project? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and detailed response. It might be useful to mention some of this on the article talk page, so that the editors involved have some idea of why the template is there. As for your second point, I don't think that's very significant. "Public interest organization" is a pretty common term, and I don't think that the first sentence of a linked article has any bearing on the neutrality of editors working on another article. (When I was also a wp newbie, I had the impression that linking is what one does on wp, regardless of the status of the linked articles or the sometimes strange juxtapositions that resulted.) I understand "Public interest organization" in this context as simply a shorthand for characterizing what kind of organization this is (as opposed to consumer rights, lobbying, professional, etc., etc.). Sindinero (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I accept that, and I withdraw the comment. I will try and remember to put something on the article talk page tomorrow, but I'm afraid for now I'm out of time. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your input. I hope it helps the article! Sindinero (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that! Dismas|^(talk) 20:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A test? Or did I do something....

User:Hasteur, who has always been relatively good to me and helpful, just fell off his rocker. I am not reporting anything except to have you bear witness to the event. I want you to know that in this issue, I was always polite and appropriate in my remarks. Just glance backward through his diffs and see. Were I a troublemaker like I once was, well, just imagine.~©Djathinkimacowboy 23:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This you must see, Watson, since he will no doubt delete my final response and everything else. I do not care who-said-what, this whole issue is uncalled for, and as I am respecting User:Hasteur's wishes, it ends now. But I desire for you to see exactly what kinds of things happen to me, and for no good reason. Also, please note my last two posts were more a ref. for me when I look at my contribs. It is to know whom to avoid. Watson, this is just sad.~©Djathinkimacowboy 23:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)--Watson, this is unworthy of me and I should not have imposed. This type of thing may well be the reason I have difficulties with some editors. Forgive me.~©Djathinkimacowboy 07:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Special:Undelete/Brookland-Cayce_High_School

Cheers:

Since when does Wikipedia delete entire articles based on one contributor's copyrighted addition? There have been quite a few contributors to this article, you could at least have the courtesy to notify them that you are deleting it. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 01:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

1. I didn't delete the article "based on one contributor's copyrighted addition". I deleted it on the basis that the article contained copyright infringing content right from its first version, so that it was, unfortunately impossible to remove only versions with the copyright infringing content, and roll back to a clean version. Criterion for speedy deletion G12 says "Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained." On this occasion, there are no "earlier versions without infringement". If the copyright infringement had indeed been an "addition" to an existing article then the situation would have been completely different. I have frequently reverted copyright infringing pages to earlier, non-infringing versions, and I never speedily delete under criterion G12 if doing that is a possible option.
2. You have knowingly restored to a public website, where anyone can view it, material which you yourself stated infringed copyright. That is illegal. The fact that one has to go through the process of first clicking on a link labelled "history" to get access to the illegally copied content does not make it any more legal to place such content on public display.
3. You may like to review your comment above. Despite starting with the word "Cheers", it reads to me more like a reprimand for doing something that you have decided is wrong than like a courteous request for discussion of an issue where you and I have different opinions. I trust that my impression is wrong, and you did not intend it the way I read it.
4. I see that you chose to revert the action of another administrator Misuse of administrative tools says should usually be done only after consultation. I do appreciate the fact that you informed me of what you did, and I thank you for that, but I would be interested to know why you decided that this case merited an exception to the usual practice of first consulting the admin whose action you are reverting, as required by policy. I look forward to reading your explanation.
5. I have never before, as far as I recall, come across the suggestion that, in the case of a speedy deletion, all contributors should be informed. Policy recommends that the creator and "major contributors" be informed by the nominator. Since the creator had not been informed by the nominator, I informed her. I also checked the editing history, and as far as I could see nobody else had made more than minor contributions. If I have missed anyone who could reasonably be considered a "major contributor" then I apologise: perhaps you could point out who it is.
6. Since you had previously edited the article, you might well be considered to be involved, so perhaps you would have been better advised to have raised the possibility of undeletion for discussion, rather than going ahead yourself.

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive explanation. I apologize if I misinterpreted your rationale for deletion as inappropriate and I admit that I was hasty in restoring the article before contacting you--I haven't had much time to edit recently, and it seemed the prudent course. I see now that there was no rush to restore the material.

Since plagiarizing portions of another website is not technically the reuse of copyrighted material; and since the administrators of Wikipedia have some considerable leniency with the removal of such material, it felt okay to me to restore. Past revisions are not present on the public facing version of an article, and I was unaware that policy required that all past revisions be removed--I should probably be more up on current policy, especially where such policy doesn't make obvious logical sense. For instance, some administrators have in the past removed material for copyright reasons out of convenience; creating ill will against the project for potential contributors. Sorry if my reversal of action was colored by that fact.

My rationale is as follows: If I had recreated the article from scratch, without restoring the past revisions, I would have been taking credit for non-plagiarized portions of the article that were not, in fact, written by me, which would have been plagiarization itself. I'm much more familiar with the subject of this particular article as well. I could have just as easily asked you to reverse yourself, but I feared, not knowing you, that it would have been a winding discussion about an article in which you had no personal interest; and I might have been using up extensive time that I don't possess trying to craft a convincing argument.

As it is, it seems, I've given extensive time creating an argument and apologizing besides. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 15:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Southern Stars poster

I see that User:Graeme Bartlett recently overturned your speedy deletion of the Southern Stars poster page. Did he discuss this with you or did he just arbitrarily decide that his opinion is more important? duffbeerforme (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I was neither consulted nor informed. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Problematic IP

the IP 24.146.246.15 seems is constantly removing a wikilink from Kashmiri people and has recently removed content from Santoor, the IP does it over and over despite the fact that I had left a few warnings on the IP's talk page. What should be done now? --Farah Desai^Talk 17:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice

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

Leandro

Hi again. Sorry to have to come back to you, but it makes more sense for me to approach you, as you know all about this issue. Leandro is back on IP: 189.27.191.59 doing the same sort of stuff (changing icons/removing event location info). Could you please see to this IP too when you have spare time? Thanks Paralympiakos (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I would help us significantly.--LlamaAl (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A gander at something bizarre: Anorak/Amauti

This is an article that requires attention from an administrative level. If you look at its recent history, I have tried removing uncited and frankly offensive material from it--which has stood unchallenged for a long time. But there is one massive problem: it seems there is an article Amauti planted right in the midst of this article. Finally, I take exception with the article itself being called Anorak when it is meant to be about the parka coat. I realise some call it "anorak" but again, this article is just plain wrong. I mean to say it is easy enough to see someone is trying to be funny, because "anorak" is an insult in England and perhaps other areas of the world. No one I can find calls a parka coat by the name "anorak" unless doing it as an insult. I doubt we care much if the Amauti People call it an anorak--which they do not. Have a look?~©Djathinkimacowboy 00:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As this is a very passionate issue with me, Watson, please see this discussion on the editor's talk page as well as having a gander at how stupid that article is. There ought to be a separate article called Parka with a section about the anorak--and nothing more. They've taken a stupid and offensive (British) term and lead people to think it means "parka". And there is clearly an ownership issue with this editor and the article. What I'd like is what I have always wanted, for WP to make some darned sense.~©Djathinkimacowboy 05:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Kolega2357

This (‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎[move=sysop] (indefinite) protect my page. If you can not change the (‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite). I so wanted to be asked look here. Greting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

False sock puppet accusation--and I will not tolerate it

Watson, I do not know what this user DrKiernan thinks he's doing but I'd like you to see this. (Here's the diff, in case he attempts to delete the post.~©Djathinkimacowboy 10:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)) It's a sock puppet accusation because he does not want me editing at one of his precious articles. Once more, Watson, just once more he does it and I'll report him on ANI! You think I am overreacting? I'll not have these lies and Chinese whispers start again! Everyone knows I have a dynamic IP, and I will not take this false accusation lying down again like I did once before.~©Djathinkimacowboy 10:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't care if this "isn't done"--I'm warning that editor at the talk page here as well as on his own talk page as I told you above, Watson. Here is DrKiernan's warrant of guilt. He is trying to tie me to the way the old IP was once set up.10:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)©Djathinkimacowboy 10:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's considered uncivil to make Sock allegations without proof or without filing an SPI - money where your mouth is, and all that. In the old days it could go to WQA. It's not significant enough to land with any form of action on ANI. Be careful you don't land in "thou do'est protest too much" land, where your loud protests merely become proof that they're right (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well Wilkins, I thank you for weighing in here--I had a post for Watson, if I may, and it may interest you:

Watson, I now know exactly what has happened--because it has happened to me twice before. User:DrKiernan, who is accusing me of sockpuppetry, is conflating me with another user who seems to have shared IP addresses with me. It happened a lot back when I edited under my IP only--I did that because it was my desire not to register with WP. You recall I told you I did that since the 1990s, until I registered with my present username. In fact when I edited under my IP only--it was safe since it was incredibly dynamic--I noted many editors who had very close IPs to mine.

After I registered with the present username, there was one instance when some editors decided I was someone else, sockpuppeting, so that was the 2nd time I had been accused. Kiernan makes 3 times, though he has only tried to frighten me at my talk page because he knows he can't link me to an IP that is 2 years old. Should I report his actions someplace? Realising you're busy, I ask your help in this. I don't a thing about IPs, how they flux, how often, nor do I have time to be tracking users and IP addresses to see if they match. Others seem to have all the time in the world and they only do it to trump up charges. Watson, I say "trump up" because that is exactly what Kiernan is doing.~©Djathinkimacowboy 11:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)