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 five days 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.

Re: name change - thanks

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

- I have said thanks on my page and am saying it again here just to make sure :-) JoBrodie (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The elevator vandal

...is back in action at Portal talk:Current events/2009 July 25 using 67.204.50.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I've tagged it, so the link may be red by the time you read this. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

...and again: Portal talk:Current events/2012 November 17 using 67.55.7.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). -- John of Reading (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

Hi James, (I know its not your name, but Hi Anon just seems silly)

I just wanted to say thank you for the information you posted

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

, I have taken note of this, and just wonder if defunct journels from the 1980's are enough to satisfy.

Thanks again and have a pleasent night.

A minor case of a returned sockpuppet

You may remember the sockpuppet I spoke of back in your Archive 41, Topic 10. He has I presume returned under the name User:ArealFatRabbit for the same malicious motive he has carried out before as User:PeterAmbrosia on the Kid Icarus article. I tried to contact Tnxman307 about it, but I realised too late, he was retired. That being said I shall move on and after this case is solved I shall no longer involve myself in this article problem if new sockpuppets of that same user continue to spring up. Deltasim (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have spent a long time looking at the editing history of the various accounts. There is certainly disruptive editing, and I think you may well be right about sockpuppetry. However, the whole thing is very complicated, and I can't find any smoking gun. Perhaps the best thing would be to take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. JamesBWatson (talk)

Okay I made my Sockpuppet report on the User:PeterAmbrosia page. Thank you for your advice and happy editing. Deltasim (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have waited for a while, but no action appears to have been taken. Have I missed out a step in the report procedure or something? Deltasim (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid you have misunderstood. The sockpuppet report you wrote is likely to stand around unnoticed by anyone. You need to go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, and scroll down to the section headed "To open a case:" There you will see instructions, You need to click the button labelled "Click to open investigation". Not only will this create an investigation page at the correct location (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PeterAmbrosia rather than User:PeterAmbrosia, but, more importantly, it will link the page to the list of currently open investigations, so that clerks and administrators who check that list will see that the SPI [page is there. Otherwise, there is no reason to suppose that anyone will ever notice it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

deletion of page krossover

i just got a message that you deleted the page krossover, may i know the reason as i am new to wikipedia i am not aware of many things, it will be kind of you if you reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibek4u (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you need to know about the reason for the deletion that has not already been explained to you on your talk page, and in the speedy deletion notice which you removed from the article? If you tell me what is not clear, then I will try to explain to you. However, at present I have no idea what might be unclear to you. You have had it explained to you that using Wikipedia for promotion is not acceptable, and you have had it explained to you that articles must be written from a neutral point of view. I am at a loss to know what more explanation you can need, since it is inconceivable that you could possibly have intended the article you wrote, full of such language as "we have developed a great business", "we set out to build a powerful product" etc etc, as anything other than promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Troll Editor on Jab Tak Hai Jaan Page

Hi, I need some help. I have tried reasoning with this man named "Zeeyanketu" but it is not working. Apparently he is a seasoned editor. I even got a consensus from many different editors on adding a section stating how odd the collection reports for the film were as there is a difference of 20% from various sources when normally the difference in collections is as little as 4-5%. The source we use, BOI, changes its numbers every day without giving an explanation and they might not be 100% reliable anymore due to conflicting interests. Either ways, I talked to other editors and told them to weigh in. All of them agree with me, even a friend of "Zeeyanketu" agrees with me. He keeps on reverting my edits about the conflicting reports which have RS sources and everything and is probably biased. He's the fan of some other actor and keeps on trolling the page. I can't say it's anything else other than trolling. I don't know what to do. As you said I should control my temper I am but this man is really testing my patience. Is there any way to block him from editing the Jab Tak Hai Jaan page? I can't take this anymore. I have spent months making this page from scratch pretty much. Months. I am not going to allow some random biased troll to undo hours and hours of work, reference hunting, so that he can exercise whatever idol-gratification he wants. What should I do? Can you ban him? How do I initiate proceedings to ban him? As I said, this has been going on for a few months now, I can't take it anymore. I really can't. Ashermadan (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Now he has started engaging in personal attacks and I have been very respectful. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jab_Tak_Hai_Jaan#Status Ashermadan (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow. Let's just say that your response to his comment "you Ashermadan cowardly poisoned others" (which is perhaps uncivil but it was not a personal attack) is incredulous. You certainly have no place complaining about incivility when you yourself tell them to "take an ESL class" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I see two editors who both have a tendency to bicker. Of the two, the less constructive is Ashermadan. I certainly don't see any justification for referring to Zeeyanketu as a "troll", any more than I see any justification for the accusation of sockpuppetry that have been made. I suggest, Ashermadan, that you stand back,look carefully at the history of your contributions on this issue, and try to imagine how it looks to an uninvolved outsider. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Nizami

James, I add a lot of academical sources: Victor Schnirelmann, Yuri Slezkine, Walter Kolarz, Kamran Talattof, Sergei Panarin etc. with quotes about campaign. Is it enough? Divot (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

After some time searching, I realised that this refers to Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan. (It helps to say exactly what article you have in mind.) Adding more and more references is missing the point: see Wikipedia:Bombardment. In fact, as far as I can see, it seems that most of the references do not mention the "campaign" at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

coi-username talk on User talk:Ecashin

Hi. Thanks for removing my edit to the Lamport's_bakery_algorithm page. I didn't understand the full conflict of interest policy well when I made that edit. My current understanding is that it's not OK to link to an implementation I created but it would be OK to paste the implementation into the wikipedia page. (I'm not sure, though, because that would be original work. With source code, it's both a clarifying example that augments the discussion and original work. The fuzziness of the issue makes me sympathetic to Wikipedia reviewers.) I made a suggestion on the Ecashin talk page for the notice that Alexf used to be split, so that in the future it's less confusing to other users than it was for me. Ecashin (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Maximus Fingolfin

Please look at the message you left on my talk page regarding the 2 articles I created — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus Fingolfin (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Done that. See my comments at the AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Michigan IP - snowbird

Hi James, The extensive blocks around Grand Rapids have been quite effective for stopping, but not reforming this guy's editing. It seems he started driving further afield (public libraries?) to get around the blanket dropped on his home haunts. It also appears he is headed back to NW FL, from which he did much sockevasion in Oct. With a location in Indiana, it appears he drove back to vote, and is now heading to the sun again.

Please consider restarting all the block clocks listed in "Future dates" at Artur's tracking page, and synchronizing them all to end on the same date (3 months?) except for ones already set to last longer. I would not be surprised to need some FL blocks as well, but we'll see what happens in the next few weeks. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

PS, Earlier you mentioned you wished there was something more we could do, and I had an idea. Even if this guys edits are reverted, he habitually puts his external link spam links in the edit summaries... That way, even if it is reverted from the article or talk page it still shows up in version histories and watchlists, and that might be enough to feed his obsession. It would be a wonderful anti-spam tool to be able to easily purge the edit summaries of spammed external links from blocked users, sort of like rollbacker but for edit summaries. Is there such a power? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Another idea maybe for village pump.... coding could prevent IPs from adding backslashes to edit summaries. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you are right in thinking that this person deliberately uses edit summaries as a holder for his/her spam links. I have revision-deleted a number of his/her more recent edit summaries, but it is a very slow job. I may come back and do some more when I have time, but doing them all is not a realistic proposition. Restarting a whole load of IP blocks is dubious, unless first it is checked that very little or no editing by other people has taken place from those IP addresses. On the other hand, it looks to me very much indeed as though this editor has been deliberately doing a proportion of innocuous unrelated edits on irrelevant articles, no doubt to create the illusion that other people are using the IP addresses. I will try to remember to come back when I have more time and look at the possibility of more blocks, and also the possibility of semi-protecting some of the most commonly attacked articles. However, there really is no perfect solution. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your caring. In reply to your remark that "I have revision-deleted a number of his/her more recent edit summaries, but it is a very slow job. I may come back and do some more when I have time, but doing them all is not a realistic proposition." Indeed, that is not realistic, which is why I was trying to think of prophylactic measures. My best idea so far is to prevent IPs from adding forward slashes to edit summaries. I have a thread at idea lab that has so far caught the attention of just one other editor (he's opposed). Curious what you think about trying to filter-prevent IP from adding external links to edit summaries? Comments here or at idea lab welcome. I am still working on formulating a formal proposal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Rifair

Sorry about not responding there quickly enough ... I let it get behind me. But you're right, it was an unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wheel Spinner / Apology

• • • Gentleman, J.D. Gragg here. I owe you an apology! Recently at the end of June 2012 had my identity stolen and several accounts hacked including very confidential information. You all seem you be very Internet savvy so I am sure you can understand just how upsetting and infuriating the event had been for me including my family, of which was the worst part of it. My investigator has just finished up with his duties and contacted me and I have found that the Wikipedia event was nothing more than pure coincidence. The main reason it did not appear this way to me was I had a lot of trouble believing that a true Wikipedia editor would edit and completely delete entire blocks and sections, including the picture that another Wiki editor then had to then reinsert, and that it was done "anonymously" at first, but then created an account just a few minutes later plus it appeared to be his very first edit, not to mention he was incapable of spelling the simplistic word "referring". Then the fact that it was edited for all "cites linking to personal or self-promotional websites" was incorrect. The only cite link back to any of my websites was the one linked to my personal name. All other cites were to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office along with cites to the U.S. Federal Court system East and West coasts, so I am sure, well I hope rather, that you can understand my position, confusion and knee-jerk reactions to all of this and accept my apologies for the entire event, as the apology is indeed sincere. I do understand that all of you do a tremendous amount of work and do it for the love of it and not monetary gain, that is for sure. So in closing, please accept my apology and should you ever require anything that I could do to make this horrid event up to you please feel free to ask. I am easily contacted via Google should you not already have my contact.

On a side note, please keep the mention of the Modern Day Wheel Spinner clean of misinformation as I still have licensing active around the globe into the 2020's and Wikipedia being international does reach them all. As for the confusion about phrasing, I have been throughout the U.S. Federal Courts and it is important that the Modern Day Wheel Spinner is not confused with the cheap spinning inferior hubcaps that trailed into the market place on the cheap end of the craze. Also, that the spinning hubcap that you have cited actually functions as a "stationary non-spinning hubcap" and has been reviewed throughout the original patent issue, again later validating the patent in the U.S. Federal Courts by U.S. Federal Judges and Magistrate Judges that specialize in IP's, plus the top 2% of Intellectual Property attorneys that were involved being the best in the field and was not, I repeat was not found to be "Prior Art". Just as an FYI that picture of the Modern Day Wheel Spinner you are using has been reviewed and is an illegal clone from China, just to let you know. So again please accept my sincerest apology. Nothing but the best of high regards to the all of you! James J.D. Gragg70.234.170.149 (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (I hope I finally learned to sign out correctly?)70.234.170.149 (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have blocked the above block-evading IP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Orange

Hi James,

There are no references for Boxoffice, Budget for this movie in the Poster. So we can remove those two from the article. Let me know your opinion. Thanks. --HariharBrahma (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Harihar.

What article are you referring to? You have never edited any page with "Orange" in its title, and my last 1500 edits don't include any page with "Orange" in its title. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue (and more)

Hey, James, you blocked User:ArealFatRabbit for sock puppetry. Then, you reverted his last edit at Kid Icarus. I'm not contacting you because of the sock puppet block, but because of the BLP issues raised in your revert. An IP has come along (admitting he's a meat puppet) and reverted you because of the BLP problem. I agree with the removal of the material (meaning the IP's edit should stand). The plagiarism charge is supported by one self-published source (Leung) and a blog entry. Now, the BLP issue is a little remote because it's accusing a company of plagiarism, but, obviously, a company is made up of people, so I still believe the BLP issue is valid. I haven't taken any action on the article. Besides, it's poorly sourced controversial material, either way. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a complex issue. While it is true that a self-published source is used, it links to the Wayback machine, which does seem to be reliable evidence. Even so, on balance I think I made a mistake in reverting. However, that does not detract from the need to block sockpuppets, nor the need to avoid edit wars. I have removed the controversial content again, and I will block Deltasim for edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/CastleKing1440

Hi, thanks for your help on GMO_CLOUD_K.K.. Just wanted to let you know that I started a SP investigation on that editor as well. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually editing that SPI when you posted your message here. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

K, thanks, I should really be more patient! I do think that the two sockmasters mentioned are one and the same, per Bilby's description that I cited. If that pans out, it might help with the investigation to merge the two cases. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies sir

Dear (not really) JamesBWatson, I hope you will accept my apology for inadvertently contravening your page laws. It was not my intention to advertise nor promote anything. As for the subject matter, I would greatly appreciate the addition of accurate, and acceptable to Wiki editors, information on the Biripi People if possible please? Purely from a cultural interest perspective theirs is, in my opinion, an intriguing cultural evolution. thank you. A.Pearler

P.S.: I do hope I haven't broken any more of your rules in this post, I'm sorry if I have, I am new to the internets. A.Pearler (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Novetica

See what you think of his unblock request (I'm satisifed with what he said). Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm a little sceptical. "I ... was only using the sandbox to practice creating articles": yes, and the article you practised creating just happened to be pure advertising prose, and just happened to be about a business the name of which agrees with your user name; "The type of contributions I intend to make are around articles pertaining to new and innovative web technologies, especially open source": like Novetica, for example? "New and innovative" is dangerously close to marketing-speak. I'm afraid, Daniel, that I fail to see anything in the unblock request which shows how future editing will differ from past editing. If you feel like making a WP:ROPE unblock then go ahead, and I will be interested to see what ensues. Personally, I would want much better assurances about the editor's intentions, but I know from past experience that you tend to take a much more lenient approach to arguably promotional accounts than I do, and if you feel that the statement made by the suer in the unblock request is enough, then I will respect your judgement. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

BSRD page issue

You delete BSRD page I have created, now I want to claim that firstly this database has now strictly peer-reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research ( http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/11/29/nar.gks1264.full). then secondly the content I have previously written is based on BSRD website, I will revise these contents. Please reopen the BSRD page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biodeveloper (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The content of the article was not just "based on" but directly copied from the web site you refer to. For copyright reasons, there can be no question of restoring the deleted content, unless there is proof that the owners of the copyright either released the text into the public domain or else licensed it for free reuse for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, in its original form or modified, by anyone in the world, because all text on Wikipedia is released under such an open license. I can, if you like, give you information about how to provide such proof, but I am doubtful whether there would be any point, since any article on the subject is likely to be deleted, ase the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The fact that you have had a peer-reviewed paper about your work published does not make it notable by Wikipedia standards. What is needed is substantial coverage in multiple third party reliable sources, independent of those responsible for the work. You clearly have a conflict of interest, and should probably not be writing an article on the subject anyway, as Wikipedia articles should be independent, third party, accounts. Finally, it seems possible that your purpose in writing the article may have been to make the subject more widely known, so that more people will use the database. If that is so, then your editing is contrary to the policy that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. I see that on your user page you say that you are "primarily interested in improving Wikipedia entries for bacterial sRNAs." That is a very good idea, and I have no doubt that there is plenty of opportunity for you to improve the articles we have on the subject. Not only will that be in itself a useful contribution to the encyclopaedia, but it will also give you a chance to learn how Wikipedia works and get to know more about its policies and guidelines, so that eventually you will be in a better position to write new articles without fear that they will disappear. I am sorry that I can't be more positive about the article you wrote, but I do hope that this one setback will not put you off from further contributions. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ambivalence socks

we have another IP sock in the farm. ‎193.82.19.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

you just blocked 82.153.11.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

duck diff Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked the IP address, and semi-protected the article for a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Another meat puppet. SQGibbon (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Email and ambivalence

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.

Also, thanks for dealing with this mess. SQGibbon (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocks, messages, and warnings

Not all accounts require a warning message; some don't even deserve one. I'll try to do better, though - perhaps some templates. DS (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. It's a pain to have to apologize on your behalf :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some blocks don't need warning messages before blocking, though most do. There are even a few situations in which it is not desirable to give a notification when the block has happened, but they are rare. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Emergency - page protection

Please protect this

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nation_state&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.207.106 (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.207.142 (talk)

Banned chauvinist user:Iaaasi

He said that You are his friend and Supporter. He sent me a message: "You will be blocked soon by my admin friends" http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.183.184.155&oldid=527848187

Is it allowed for an admin to support wiki vandals who delete references and sentences in wikiarticles, which were inducted by his chauvinistic purposes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.184.155 (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Austria-Hungary&action=history

Please semi-protect this article too, thanks in advance Irji2012 (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)