User talk:JBW

Thank you

For this. It's one of the most comprehensive rationales I've ever seen. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: It's far easier to just give one of the standard templated reasons, and most often that is good enough. However, there are times when I think it's worth giving a more detailed explanation, either because of a feeling that the blocked editor quite possibly really doesn't fully understand what the problems are, or because in the event of an unblock request it may not be immediately obvious to a reviewing administrator where to look to see the reasons for the block. Obviously, such detailed explanations take up time and effort, and it is encouraging to occasionally be told that the effort is appreciated, so thanks for your message. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's a good clear reason why they were blocked. Their editing went from some accidental but repeated errors to vandalism very quickly, hopefully they'll come back and communicate with other users. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Reading your comments prompted me to have another look at what I wrote, and I decided that I had been more discouraging to the editor than necessary, since it does look as though he/she started out with good intentions, and quite likely only resorted to vandalism as a result of frustration. I have changed my block message, as you can see here. I really do believe in trying to avoid being too discouraging to new editors who mean well but go a bit wrong, but I spend so much of my time on administrative work dealing with outright vandals and trolls that I find it very easy to slip into being more unfriendly to new editors than I intend to. I'm glad you posted to me, which encouraged me to think again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem - that does look better. I too thought they were doing lots of decent edits (certainly for a new editor), but was disappointed by their lack of comms on their talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please could you block IP User:180.149.211.7- this suggests they're the same editor, just annoyed. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 March 2016‎

@Joseph2302: It looks as though it may be the same person, but whether it is or not, I've blocked the IP address because of vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hindi->English implausible redirect?

Hi. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one, but I was curious why you felt that २०१५–१६ ईरानी कप was an implausible redirect. Its destination is on an India-related topic, and this redirect was in Hindi. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: I will restore the redirect, since you have questioned the deletion, but it seems to me unlikely that anyone will search for "२०१५–१६ ईरानी कप" on English Wikipedia. Anyone wishing to find information on it in English will surely search for it under an English name. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree as to the unlikeliness of its use. But it's admissible under WP:R3 ("However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are sometimes redirects in other languages."), there's a template for it at {{r from alt lang}}, and it seemed to me to fall under the rubric of "Redirects are cheap". —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your block of Ganesh591

Hi "James" - I had this user's talk page watchlisted following a warning which I issued recently to him. I noticed that you had changed their block settings, this time specifying that they had abused multiple accounts. Should I tag the user page of the account with the indefinite block as having done so? Regards, --Ches (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: I've done so myself, as some editors object to non-admins tagging sockpuppets. I had actually intended to do this, but forgot, so thanks for prompting me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem sir. --Ches (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Unprotection of UFC 109

Hi, many years ago (about 5.5) you semi-protected the UFC 109 article indefinitely. It made perfect sense at the time, but I think that the chances of vandalism on that article are now low. Would you mind unprotecting it? Chuy1530 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chuy1530:  Done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Chuy1530 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Pulse GP Jobs

The Pulse GP Jobs page got deleted for promotional content? Can you elaborate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biancapettifor (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Biancapettifor: If you really sincerely did not think that you were writing promotional text, then it is difficult to know how to begin to "elaborate". The whole page, from start to finish, was written as though it was intended to persuade us that "Pulse GP Jobs" is really good. It even contained such unadulterated marketing puffery as "Pulse GP Jobs is the ideal recruitment partner for general practice surgeries, offering a highly engaged GP community, an industry leading job platform and competitive and flexible advertising packages", to give just one example. In fact, it looked exactly as though it was written by a professional marketing person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Biancapettifor: Please don't remove content from this talk page. Apart from cases of vandalism, trolling, personal attacks, and other inappropriate content, I prefer content to stay here and eventually be moved to my talk page archives for future reference. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanking

• Hello bro, thanks for ur suggestions :) I need ur same help in Ajay Devgan's page which is to be renamed to Ajay Devgn, if u do not know him!! let me say he is a wonderful actor from Hindi/Bollywood films :) can u say how I can move that page ? Fygu (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fygu: Wikipedia's policy on article titles is that normally the title should be the form of the name most commonly used. A Google search for "Ajay Devgan" gave 410,000 hits, and "Ajay Devgn" gave 397,000, which suggests that there's not a lot of difference, if anything with "Ajay Devgan" being slightly more common. I also checked a sample of about 20% of the references in the article, and again I found "Ajay Devgan" was used in slightly more of them than "Ajay Devgn". Without clear evidence that "Devgn" is more commonly used, the article should be left where it is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Ya I agree with ur views bro, Thank u again :) Fygu (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Request a lock?

I have made Citations and i shown evidence to my edits at Beyonders and fixed my own errors like grammar and such but 2 anons which i believe are the same keeps arguing and undoing the info which they believe is wrong even when i shown the direct absolute truth from the comics themselves and i know the rule of edit wars and such so before a ban or anything comes to be i would like the page locked to avoid more useless conflict. Beyonder (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod

@BeyonderGod: By asking for the article to be "locked" do you mean semi-protected, so that you will still be able to edit the article, but IP editors won't? If so, you are asking me to use administrative action to help you in your edit-war, and there is no question of that. I see that over a long period of time you have shown signs of regarding yourself as a kind of owner or guardian of the article, repeatedly indicating that you think for some reason that you have superior knowledge or authority of the subject, and other editors should step aside and let you take control of the article. You appear to think that you are some kind of expert, so that your opinions should carry more weight than those of other editors, so that your view takes precedence over consensus. That, quite simply, is not how Wikipedia works, and continuing like that is likely to lead to being blocked, very probably for much longer than either of the two short blocks you have received in the past, since short blocks have failed to persuade you to change your approach. I shall also check your recent editing history more thoroughly, to decide whether there is enough edit-warring there to justify blocking you already.

I must also tell you that posting to the talk pages of new editors claiming to be an "Official Wikipedia Greeter" is unacceptable, as new editors are likely to take it literally, and believe that you are acting in some official capacity, which is, of course untrue. Therefore, do not post such messages again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: You made a bunch of assumptions about Me for no reason.......

1. Semi-Lock why not a total lock of the page for a long time? because it seems people are going to get personal.
2. I never stated nor did i mention i was Superior in knowledge or authority over the page it's the fact i showed what i spoke that's what a citation is correct? a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work. they haven'to once refuted my citations at all here are the Links again and you may compare the edits.

• Beyonders Small Bio in Secret Wars Guide to the Marvel multiverse Page 9 of the book.
• About Beyonder and the Powers they possessed. New Avengers Vol.3 Issue 30 Pages 7,16-14
• The Beyonders stating to be Omnipotent/All-Powerful Secret Wars Issue 5 Pages 12-13
• The Beyonders affected the Omniverse All New All Different Avengers Vol 1. Page 2-3

1. Opinion? uh no James.....because a Opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge that here is directly opposite because again i showed Citations and citations are to facts/knowledge and gave direct issue numbers and a handbook so i don't see how something like that is an "Opinion" because an opinion isn't based on facts but which the whole premise of my links proves other so no sir sorry to say there is no opinion from me just straight word to word from and by the writers of marvel themselves.
2. precedence over consensus? Not in anyway am i using a rank above them not even once did i use such an immature manner against them.
3. Wikipedia main function is working on gathering the factual information and giving out to the public i haven't once gave false information on wikipedia pages i have gave the main sources for comics and as such.
4. The 2 short blocks were simply because of a certain user who has a personal grudge against me and can't handle a simple edit as shown across his wikia account and he had later conceded as proven on the talk page as i showed my sources as he goes mostly on "Theories" and placing real life logic into a fictional series full of magic and other such things. edit warring? Only 3 pages which is Beyonder and List of Tenchi Muyo! characters had serious page warring and all over the Omnipotence subject the subject the person i argued with couldn't refute my sources and i had refuted his more times than anything else.
5. So i can't be a kind person and greet others? i am just trying to be a nice person because that's what the internet needs right now i am a person who wants and seeks peace James not the other way around.

And if you think i am being a smartass i am not trying to be i am just speaking honestly toward you as an adult to another adult and with this i will show you respect because that's a major line between to people being civil. Beyonder (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod

@BeyonderGod: Well, there's quite a lot of I didn't hear that and missing the point of what I said there, and experience suggests that in such cases trying to give explanations is futile, as the person who didn't hear the first time will not hear again. Nevertheless, I shall try to answer some of the points you mention.

1. You say that I made a "bunch" of assumptions about you, but you don't actually mention any assumptions about you that I made, so I can't answer that.
2. If by "a total lock of the page" you mean full protection so that nobody except administrators can edit the article, then the reason for not doing that is that Wikipedia aims to be editable by anyone, and such a drastic measure is used only as a last resort in cases of severe disruption, by many editors, so that the problem can't be dealt with by lesser measures such as blocking one or two persistently disruptive editors.
3. You appear to think that you have contradicted my suggestion that you think your opinions should carry more weight than those of other editors by telling me it is not opinion, but objective fact. You do not seem to see that, far from contradicting what I said, that confirms what I said: the belief that "what other people think is their opinion, but what I think is not mere opinion: it is objective truth" is precisely the kind of belief that your view is superior and should carry more weight that I was referring to.
4. No, the blocks were not "because of a certain user who has a personal grudge against me": they were because you were edit-warring. To illustrate that fact, here are just a few of your edits from just one of your edit-wars:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Part of your comment about that seems to be an attempt to say that the repeated reverting (which is what "edit-warring" means) somehow doesn't count as edit-warring, since you are convinced that your edits were right. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right.
5. There is no point wasting time answering your strawman argument about saying that you "can't be a kind person and greet others". I never suggested that, and it is difficult to believe you are so incapable of understanding plain English that you think I did.
6. I have recently discovered this edit, in which you said "A admin gave me a title of official wikipedia greeter". If some administrator really did say such a bizarre thing as that, please tell me which administrator it was, and where and when he or she said it. Otherwise, please don't make such claims. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright i was just trying to end a edit war that was all...... Beyonder (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod

UK Wikimeet survey results

Hello. This is a quick note to let you know that the results of the UK wikimeet survey have now been posted on Meta at m:UK Wikimeet survey 2015. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ayra Mariano - deletion

Hi! May I ask why the page "Ayra Mariano" was deleted aside from the reason: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" that was discussed five months ago?

The reasons why the page was deleted the previous year were:
1. Participation in a reality show is not grounds for notability. - User:PRehse

• She's now seen in other local shows aside from the said reality show.

2. Can't find more than 2-3 passing mentions in local press. - User:FoCuSandLeArN

• Try searching her again. There are already more than "3" mentions of her in local press, no doubt about that.

3. I'm not seeing much for improvement here. - User:SwisterTwister

• After five months, there are so much improvements. Or have you tried reading the article first before deleting it?

4. all fail for notability criteria. - User:Onel5969

Notability for entertainers:

• 'Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.'

-She has starred in different drama anthologies, she will be starring in a local tv series and she has a web series. She's still new in the entertainment business so you wouldn't expect her to have that much of a production in just five months right?

• 'Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.'

-Like I said, she's still newbie but she has a fan base, not that large yet but she already have one.

I have cited the proper sources, so why is my page deleted again? I wasn't even given a notification in order to at least reason out why I created the said page the second time around. Does this mean a page that was once deleted cannot be recreated anymore? Because I really don't think so. MBdemigod (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBdemigod: I have looked at the references you posted in the article. Many of them do not support the statements about Ayra Mariano to which you attached them, and indeed several of them don't even mention her. (For example, the statements "Mariano was born in Northern Marianas Islands. Although born in a US territory island, she grew up in Paombong, Bulacan" are cited to a source which does not mention Ayra Mariano at all, let alone tell us where she was born or where she grew up.) Other sources only briefly mention her, or are not independent sources. All in all, I do not see evidence that she satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You say "She's still new in the entertainment business so you wouldn't expect her to have that much of a production in just five months right"; that comes close to saying that you think she doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines: she needs significant roles, not roles which are about as significant as you could reasonably expect for someone with such a limited career as hers; if we applied that criterion, my next door neighbour's dog would qualify for a Wikipedia article, as he has about as much coverage in significant published sources as you could reasonably expect for an unknown person's pet dog (namely none).

Having said that, I accept that the article you created is somewhat different from the one deleted at AfD, and since there is no point getting into endless fruitless quarrels about how different an article must be to not count as sufficiently similar to a deleted one to qualify for speedy deletion, I shall restore the article. However, whether it will stand up to another AfD is open to question. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: About your example, I may have put the wrong source. Here's the correct one: http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/ayra-mariano.html I may have corrected it if you told me so and not deleted it on the spot. Aside from the above sample, which several statements have sources that don't even mention her?

And that neighbor's dog of yours, has he/she won a reality contest? Or starred in a webs series? Or has he/she been on a Primetime drama? If yes, then maybe they really have the same criteria. Anyway, thank you for restoring the page. I believe the sources I attached are properly cited. MBdemigod (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBdemigod: That's a strawman argument, since my comment related only to the comment which I quoted, and was not intended to indicate anything at all about the validity or lack of validity of other claims of significance. As for what other references don't mention her, unfortunately I did not make a list when I checked them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Then maybe try making a list next time especially when you use it as a reason to delete a page. MBdemigod (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBdemigod: Whenever I check an article in a situation like this, if I think there are any reasons why it's likely that I may need to refer to what I found again, I make a note of it. However, if you are suggesting that every time I check anything I should keep a detailed list of everything I see, on the off chance it may turn out to be one of the tiny minority of occasions when the information may be useful, then I think you probably seriously underestimate how much time that would take, and how much more useful work I could do in that much time. However, I really don't understand why you attach so much importance to it, as it really wouldn't take you a lot of effort to click on each link and search for the words "Ayra Mariano" in each page that comes up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting page Bhagavad Gita

I recently made a user account and edited the page Bhagavad Gita, after finding that the external links to ISKCON's edition (Bhagavad-gita As It Is) didn't work. After only a few minutes on Wikipedia, my user account had been marked for 'speedy deletion', and soon thereafter I found my user account 'blocked from editing indefinitely', as well as my first edit reverted (by you). The fault on my part was that I had made my account with the same name as the website from which I was replacing links. Bummer! Anyways, after a few backs-and-forths on my user talk page, it was resolved, and I'm free to edit again. Although I was a little set back at first, I quickly realised that Wikipedia has a great community of contributors and moderators, without which there would be room for a lot of vandalism and promotional content. So you deserve my thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia free of such!

I didn't want to just revert your revert of my edit without asking your permission first. Maybe you could verify that the 'old' links are in fact broken, and the new links I added actually point to the same quote/content in an authorised edition of ISKCON's Bhagavad-gita (As It Is)? If you have no further objection, I would like to go ahead and replace all broken links to the website in question with new, working ones, as there is no point in keeping outdated source links on Wikipedia. What do you say... Friends? :) —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Das108 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 12 March 2016

@Das108: OK, since you say you are not working for the company concerned, I have restored your edit. I am sorry you have had such a discouraging start to the experience of editing Wikipedia, and I hope it goes better from now on.

When you post a message on a talk page, put four tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end of the message. That will be automatically converted to a signature, which will not only show other editors who posted the message, but will also provide a link to your talk page, which makes it easy for other editors to contact you. . The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! No hard feelings here, I should've read up on user name policies first. Das108 (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Das108: In my opinion, there are far too many policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and it's completely unrealistic to expect new editors to read up on them all before they get started. I think Wikipedia would be much better if we deleted about 75% of the policies and guidelines, and cut the remaining 25% down to about 10% of their current length. However, as long as we have such an excessive quantity of policies and guidelines, new editors will, without meaning any harm, find themselves in violation of policies, and I don't blame them for doing so. Unfortunately, some new editors get personally offended by being told that they are in breach of a policy they didn't know about, and some of them just refuse to accept the policies, and carry on acting against policy even when they have been told, but you seem willing to accept it and move on, which is fine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Protect Mongolia again

Hi JamesBWatson,

The article Mongolia on my watchlist has been continually vandalized by what seems to be sockpuppets. Your protection seems to have expired and another user User:JamesBWatson Genghis Khan has done the same things other sockpuppets have done. Would you mind protecting the page again? And also, maybe should you start an SPI as I think we really need a CheckUser to see what is going on. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 12:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@TheCoffeeAddict: I've protected the article again. An SPI to ask for a CheckUser may be a good idea. I'm a bit short of time now, but I may come back and do that when I have time, if you don't want to do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:, case opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Genghis Khan for the record and for CU purposes TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 13:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ayra Mariano

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ayra Mariano. 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. MBdemigod (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

IP you blocked for racist trolling

See my talk page, might be Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Prompted by this message I have looked at the Mikemikev's editing history, and I would say "might be" is being very cautious indeed. Not much doubt about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to influence you, but I agree. UK geolocation is pretty useless. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yes, beyond the mere fact that it is in the UK: any more precision than that is impossible. The IP address that I'm editing from now geolocates to a city hundreds of miles away from where I actually am. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

And another: 86.178.75.96 (talk · contribs) Doug Weller talk 17:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Indeed. I am wondering why you haven't blocked the IP address, or at the least given a warning. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Real life, sorry. I have blocked now. 31 hours as I think it's dynamic. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I emailed you

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sharoq Malki Page

Dear James,

Would you kindly help me. apology for any mistake in editing I did not know that I was breaking a rule by creating the page again.

The issue happened that. I wanted to change the page name but I did not know how . so i thought of creating a new page with same contents then deleting the old page.

will you kindly allow me to create the page again or guide me of the best way to fix that issue

appreciate your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSolution (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrSolution: This is how to rename a page. At the top of the page there is a link labelled "Move". If you can't see it, hold your mouse button over the link labelled "More", and it should show up. Click on it. A page will show up with a box containing the name of the page: write the new page name in that box, in place of the old one. Write a few words explaining why you are renaming the page in the box labelled "Reason:" and then click on "Move page". The page should then be moved to the new title. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank you James for your advice.. as both pages were deleted by you last time due to duplication. Can I create the page again ? .. I understand my mistake and will be more careful next time .. appreciate your help —  Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSolution (talk • contribs) 07:34, 13 March 2016‎

@MrSolution: First of all, I apologise for the fact that the answer I gave to you probably wasn't very helpful. When I wrote it, I thought that only the duplicate article had been deleted, so you just needed to know how to move the old one to the new title. I forgot that I had deleted both articles.

The second article was deleted because it duplicated the first one, but the first article was deleted for a completely different reason, namely that it was totally promotional in character. A Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and there is no place for such language as "distinguished", "she has promoted policies conducive to the best interests of employees and the organization", "a perfect fit in HR", "Rich with advice for personal and professional success, they both entertain and guide the reader toward developing strength, kindness, sincerity, honesty, integrity, and many other characteristics of the wise", and so on.

The article you created had been nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that there was no plausible evidence that Sharoq Al-Malki is significant enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. I did not give that as a reason for deletion, because I thought there was just about enough suggestion of significance to make that unacceptable as a reason for deletion. However, I am not sure that she satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if she doesn't, then any work put into creating an article about her is likely to be wasted, as the article is likely to be deleted again. You ask whether you can create the page again. My answer to that is yes you can, but I would advise you not to do so unless you can first determine that she does satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Unfortunately, there are in my opinion far too many policies and guidelines for Wikipedia, and many of them are far too long and complicated, making it difficult for new editors to know what is acceptable. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. However, if you do wish to consider recreating this article, the most relevant guidelines are probably the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of people, and the guide to reliable sources.

A couple of points about something completely different. There is no need to use {{ping}} when you are posting to the talk page of the editor you are writing to, as he or she will be alerted to posts on that talk page anyway, and "ping" is useful only for alerting an editor to messages on some page other than his or her own talk page. More important, though, is the fact that "ping" does not produce an alert for the editor unless in the same edit as you use {{ping}} you also include ~~~~ in your message. It is always a good idea to put ~~~~ at the end of any talk page message, as it is automatically converted into a signature, which both tells other editors who wrote the message, and also provides a link to your talk page, which may be helpful for other editors who wish to contact you. However, if you are using {{ping}}, then using ~~~~ is not just a good idea, it is essential, as without it the ping doesn't work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear James ,, Thank you for your clarification and good reply, I will take your advice, review the text and post essential facts fist then updating gradually .. Appreciate your help MrSolution (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC) .

Apologies

hi, I swear I don't know what happened while I was editing the page of the Ministry of Education, Universities and Research (Italy). I only meant to correct the plural of the name of the ministry. Please consider the description of the changes I made (it's "Ministry of Education and University,..." and not Universities, to be changed also in the title. This is a wrong translation). That was the only change I intended to make. And please consider analysing what went wrong during my editing, because I really really didn't do that, (or ... better... I didn't mean to do that)! thank you Wikipat~itwiki (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikipat~itwiki: OK, it's difficult to imagine how adding a link to "Auschwitz concentration camp" can have happened by accident, but I will accept your word that somehow it did. Concerning the other change you made in the same edit, while of course "dell'Università" literally means "of the university", the singular really doesn't make any sense in English, unless there is only one university in Italy. You no doubt have a far better understanding of Italian than I have, but it looks to me as though the Italian singular is being used as a sort of collective term for universities in general, rather than referring to one particular university. In English we use singulars in that sort of collective meaning with abstract nouns but not with concrete nouns. Thus it is perfectly right that "Istruzione" and "Ricerca" are translated as "Education" and "Research" in the singular, but natural English idiom requires a plural to translate "Università", unless I have completely misunderstood the Italian. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)