User talk:JBW

Protrader Wikipedia Page deletion

Dear JamesBWAtson

My name is Martin and I am writing to discuss with you the Protrader page which you have deleted recently. Since I have spotted deletion talk I have started to work on remaking the article which took couple days to get familiar with charges from users. I have put great work to comply with Wikipedia rules - never intended to break them - to create an article without an advertising tone and with fair amount of information. Hope that the current version (recreated) will satisfy all requirements - according to my judgment it's not that different from descriptions of other trading software applications present in Wikipedia. If the article is still somehow infringing the rules I will be happy to follow your guidance regarding corrections. However, I do not agree with some allegations, that sources like Finance Magnates or ForexCrunch are niche. Hope to hear from you. Yours sincerely, Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viamortis (talk • contribs) 11:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is very curious that this brand new version even includes the AfD template of the previous verion. I have speedied this reincarnation but salting would seem to be in order.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Velella - as I said in other discussion with you, I was rebuilding the article from AfD version. Meanwhile article was deleted and I had no time to accept edited version. So I accepted system's suggestion to recreate and AfD left there - did not want to delete it. I don't know why instead of listen to argument you try make liar of me... Viamortis (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Viamortis

• The article has been repeatedly deleted. The reasons for deletion have centred round two issues: lack of evidence of notability, and promotional nature of the article. the latest version which Viamortis created did no more than those earlier versions to show notability, and was even more promotional than those earlier versions. It was deleted by DGG. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"PBS Kids" block evaders

Just a heads-up that they appear to have returned. 2601:806:C100:BFD:FC8A:3087:5575:944F is the first I've seen and am guessing there soon will be more, if they're not here already. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I was away when you posted this message, and it has taken me a while to get round to dealing with it. However, the IP address has certainly been used for unconstructive editing, much of it apparently vandalism, and it looks very much as though it is likely to be the same editor as before, so I have blocked it for a month. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Uw-coi-min

Given the developments at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-coi (specifically relevant diffs and links: [1], [2], and Template talk:Uw-coi-min#Speedy deletion nomination), any objections to the reapplication of a WP:T3 speedy deletion tag (or I'd again suggest an expedited WP:G7 tag on your part) at {{Uw-coi-min}}?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have collect some links at my sandbox, related to Elvey's behavior, on this subject. --Adam in MO Talk 05:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Restoring LifeCell International

Hi, you recently deleted the LifeCell International article per CSD G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". My only involvement with the article was moving it from a different article name recently. But before I did the rename, I had a quick look at the article and sources, and it looked fair and had decent source coverage. Can you have a look at the version that was originally deleted, is it a different version from the last deletion? Do you think it's worth pursuing WP:DELREV? -- intgr [talk] 11:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There was, as far as I could see, even less there to establish notability than in the version which was subject to the AfD discussion. Speedy deletion criterion G4 is subject to widely differing interpretations by different editors, with some thinking the article has to be almost identical, others taking the view that a new version which essentially says the same things and does not address the issues which led to deletion is close enough. There is no point in a deletion review: if you really think it's worth trying to save the article, let me know, and I will undelete it. However, it will go back to a new AfD, and I think the likelihood of deletion again is high. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok, I probably didn't look into the sources thoroughly enough. If as you say "the likelihood of deletion again is high", then it's probably not worth bothering with. Thanks :) -- intgr [talk] 20:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

TfD Admin Close/Decision Requested

There is a TfD discussion that has been open for more than 7 days (at this point 13). There have been plenty of !votes on both sides and it is going to need an admin to sort them all out and decide the final outcome. For the record, I am involved with this discussion as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I see exactly what you mean, but I am reluctant to close the discussion. To me, the argument that templates should lead editors to articles, not, as these do, to other templates, is convincing, so I would support deletion, but at a quick skim through the discussion, it does not look to me as though there is a consensus to delete. In the past I have closed discussions with a "close" that I don't personally agree with, because I have accepted that there is a clear consensus, whatever my view, but in this case, where the discussion is fairly long, with strong views on both sides, reviewing the discussion would take a significant amount of work, and very probably the end result would be doing something I don't agree with, I don't feel inclined to go for it, so I'm afraid I'm going to pass on this one. (By the way, no harm was done by "lighting this up" to be sure, but it wasn't actually necessary. I had looked at the discussion, but had to go off and do something else, so my reply to you was pending, rather than forgotten.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, you are the second to pass on this one so far. :) I don't think anyone wants to touch it with a 10 1/2 foot pole. :) Mlaffs and I already have a "Plan B" ready to roll out if the discussion is closed as "Delete". So, either way it goes, I won't be too terribly upset.

I do keep forgetting that we have that new notification system now that tells you how many notifications you have, except for which the last one was. So, goof on my part there with the "lighting it up". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was a pain

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I think that you deserve this for dealing with my WP:CB on the Exeter Metro and Skovaji. I won't do it again! RailwayScientist (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@RailwayScientist: Do you know, after over nine years as a Wikipedia editor, including over five years as an administrator, I had never come across WP:CB, and here's an almost brand new editor pointing me to it. Most editors who get indefinitely blocked within a couple of months of creating their account are just vandals, spammers, or other kinds of totally unhelpful editors, but some are actually people who got off to a bad start, but could be good editors if they are given a second chance. I think you are one of those who could be a good editor: that's why I unblocked you. Please prove me right! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll do my best! RailwayScientist (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow Up

Hey, this is Dave Felmer. You delt with my dispute on here a month ago that led to me being put on the 1RR rule. It's now been over 30 days since I was placed on this and since then I've done my best to ensure I don't edit war and engage in talk sections before making any changes etc and I feel I've really settled done and am not disruptive anymore (a product that I feel stemmed from my total inexperience on wikipedia having only started editing this summer). Anyway, I recall you saying that if I were to learn my trade here and maybe come back in a month that we could maybe remove the 1RR, so I was wondering whether that was possible now.

Please let me know. Davefelmer (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

He only wants it removing so he can start edit warring again, and you can see here that his behaviour has not significantly changed. He has engaged at WikipediaProject Football and on some talk pages, but took pretty much nothing away from the conversation with Struway as his first action was to immediately enter again into blanking portions of the honour sections of PFC Sofia. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Article delete

Why you delete this article(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayak_Bepari). Please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayak Bepari (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Because there is no indication that the subject of the article is significant enough to justify being the topic of an article in an encyclopaedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

But why you can't give me any notification,when the article has been many reliable sources.Can you please restore it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayak Bepari (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Usually, I would notify the creator of an article in a situation such as this, but in this case the creator had already been informed that the page was nominated for deletion. I don't check every editor who has edited an article and inform them all.
2. No, the article did not have "many reliable sources": it had three sources, none of which was a reliable independent source. It is clear that the article was an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion, created and largely edited by two accounts which are both clearly operated by one or more people with a conflict of interest. I also see no evidence that you satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Graysie Holmes

Hi how was this vandalism? --166.172.59.33 (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't vandalism. Maybe you honestly thought that Wikipedia accepts articles about subjects such as some insignificant girl, that some anonymous person thinks is pretty. However, it was never going to be accepted as an article, whether it was vandalism or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User deletion

why did you delete my account jamesstevens97 ?? you say i was vandalizing when i clearly wasn't, i was updating my local football teams wiki, its people like you that stop small people from learning wiki and using it to CORRECTLY update pages and not 'spam or vandalize' as you suggest, which i clearly didnt. okay so new people aren't gonna be amazing at editing wiki like me but its no reason to ban them! i now cant access my account which i have made dedicated edits on so i think i will give wiki a miss if you are just going to delete peoples accounts when they are doing nothing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesstevenswwfc (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jamesstevenswwfc: Can you clarify exactly what you are saying I have "deleted"? Do you mean that I have blocked an earlier account you used? If so, you must have made a mistake in its title, as there is no record of there ever having been an account called jamesstevens97. I have also checked my block log back to April, and in that period I have never blocked any account the name of which contained the string "stevens". Please do let me know what the name of the account was, so that I can check what I did and why, and get back to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jamesstevenswwfc: With some more searching, I have found an account JamesStevens97, which has edited four of the articles that you have edited, so probably that is what you mean. However, that account has never been blocked, no page it has ever edited has ever been deleted, and I have never edited any page that account edited, nor had any other contact with the account, as far as I know. I have no idea why you think I have, as you put it, "deleted" your account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

John Collee

Regarding John Collee, I see that the person himself has been editing. For what it's worth, for his article, this is the last revision before he started editing it. We could revert back to that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Erik: I don't think we have to be as drastic as that. Looking fairly briefly at the changes since that edit, the only things I saw that seemed to show an unacceptable conflict of interest were some external links and a very small amount of rather promotionally-worded text, all of which have been removed. It may be that more thorough checking would reveal further problems: for example, I wonder about some of the references, but at present I don't have more time to spend on it. You clearly know far more both about the article and about its subject than I do, so your judgement of whether any further changes are needed may well be better than mine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned up a little further, removing unsourced statements. I replaced primary-sourced details with secondary sources. (I had meant to clean the article up a bit last time Collee edited it, but I never got around to it and just noticed the second spurt of edits.) I can look for more secondary sources, as I haven't researched this person for a few years. Any feedback you have? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana Lightning page

This page should not be deleted because I was told after the last deletion that if I spent some time learning how to write a good encyclopedia article and waited some time that I could repost the article with more citations. It has been almost a year. I have collected more information and have added twenty-two external links. I live in Louisiana where this product is made and it is a very popular product. It is very well known and as you can see from the amount of outside articles, reviews, and profiles from all over the United States, people are talking about Louisiana Lightning. This is NOT an advertisement. It does not read like and advertisement.

How is this page any different from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_McKenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan%27s_Creek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Smoky_Distillery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiler%C3%ADas_y_Crianza_del_Whisky_S.A.

In fact, how is this Louisiana Lightning page any different from any of the listings on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whisky_brands#American_whiskey

I do not understand....

I do not know what the four tildes are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix25782000 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Phoenix25782000: It must be frustrating to come to Wikipedia keen to contribute, to do what you believe is correct, and then to see your work deleted repeatedly. I am sorry to have contributed to that experience. However, I shall try to explain some of the points involved, and answer the points you have raised.

1. Yes, you were told that "in six months maybe after the article gets deleted, you'll know how to float one which meets Wikipedia's standards". I can't read the mind of the editor who made that suggestion, but I think it is very likely that he had in mind that in those six months you would have further experience of editing Wikipedia, so that you would learn what is acceptable by Wikipedia standards, rather than that just by going away for some months and not touching Wikipedia you would somehow develop the ability to create an article which was 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. I don't know whether you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia generally, and this article just happened to be the one you started with, or whether you are only here to create this one article. If you are interested in contributing in other areas, then I suggest you will have a much better chance of having a successful time here if you take that advice.
2. You have, as you said, added a number of external links. I have had a look at them. Many of them are: the company's own web site, which is not an independent source, blogs, which are not reliable sources, sites advertising the product or in other ways not independent, pages merely mentioning the product briefly. While the number of such links is larger than was the case the previous time you created the article, in terms of establishing notability as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, they do not seem to be of better quality, or to address the arguments raised in the deletion discussion.
3. It is natural and reasonable for a new editor to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable. Unfortunately, however, doing so is not a reliable guide. There are over five million articles on English Wikipedia, and the number of editors who are regularly involved in maintaining the quality of articles is very small in proportion to that number. Consequently, quite often articles which do not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines escape notice for a very long time. New editors who see an article deleted often say "Why is my article different from such and such an article and such and such another article", as you have done. Sometimes, the answer is "Although superficially similar, there are important differences, so that some of the articles satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, whereas yours didn't", but at other times the answer is "you are perfectly right, those articles are unsuitable, and will be deleted too. Thanks for drawing them to our attention." I have looked at the first of the articles you mention, and it shows no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria, so I have proposed it for deletion. I may check the others later.
4. Wikipedia's criterion for speedy deletion as a repost of a page previously deleted as the result of a deletion discussion exists in order to prevent waste of editors' time by having a new deletion discussion which just repeats the same reasons as were given in the previous discussion. If you want me to, I shall restore the deleted article. However, if I do that, it will be taken back to Articles for deletion, and it seems to me very likely that the result will be that people's time will be taken up with the same points being made as before, and the article will be deleted. It's up to you whether you think that spending time on defending the article under such circumstances would be a productive enough use of your time to be worthwhile.
5. A "tilde" is this little thing: ~ . Since you say you live in Louisiana, you are presumably using a US keyboard, in which case it is in the top left hand corner, with the shift key needed. If you type ~~~~ at the end of a talk page message, the Wikimedia software will automatically convert it to a signature, which not only shows your user name, so that other editors know who posted the message, but also includes a link to your talk page, making it easy for other editors to contact you if they wish to.

I hope what I have written will be helpful to you. Please do feel welcome to contact me again if you have more to say about this, or if you have anything else to ask me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we do a proxy block of Cloudmosa?

Asking because one of your blocks was mentioned at WP:OP. At this OP request User:Zzuuzz suggests a regular anonblock of the /20. Unless there is objection I'm planning to go ahead with anonblock of 45.33.128.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). This 'Puffin' mobile browser offered by Cloudmosa might be analogous to the Opera Mini Browser. Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Spliff Joint Blunt

Are you planning to keep the indef for Spliff Joint Blunt? Based on this comment it's pretty likely he has socked in the past. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes, that edit is, in fact, one of several reasons why I think that there is likely to be previous history of sockpuppetry, and so I am not going to lift the indefinite block. However, if you disagree and prefer to restore the original block I will accept that. I can't find any clear evidence that AndresHerutJaim is the true master, but it is entirely possible: admitting sockpuppetry but pretending the admission is just a joke is exactly the kind of thing that I have seen long-term persistent sockpuppeteers do in the past. It is a kind of thumbing their nose at us: "yes I'm socking, but you can't stop me" which again is exactly what the diff you link to seems to be saying. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I have no intention of restoring the original block. Just asked if you were because if you did, I was going to impose editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know I was Breaking the rules

hey. sorry about that James. I was going to add info saying what film the reference (GET THE CHOPPA) was from etc. but I did not know that I was breaking the rules for vandalism. FORGIVE ME SENPAI PLZ. :'( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurienator (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Laurienator: It isn't a matter of knowing "rules". If you honestly made the edits you have made (both at Sir Roger Manwood's School and at Laurienator) and didn't think there was anything wrong with them, then you are so out of touch with what Wikipedia is that you really shouldn't be editing here, and if you continue in the same way you will probably be blocked pretty soon. If, however, you knew full well that you were vandalising, then you are perfectly capable of deciding not to do the same any more, and you are welcome to start making useful contributions if you would like to. Whether what you posted was a reference to a film or not, it was nonsense. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Spacers and Standoffs Content Removal

Dear JamesBWatson, I am trying to understand why you removed my content about signs standoffs and spacer. The pages is about standoffs and spacers for computers and the reference link for that content is a website for a business that sells these types of standoffs.

My content contributed by explaining the uses of standoffs in signage and displays and I referenced a site that sells these same types of spacers and standoffs. I realize the link is not going to pose any value for SEO. It was a valid contribution to explain to people about the different types of standoffs and spacers that exist.

Best Regards, Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsstandoffs (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mbsstandoffs:

1. We need a reference other than a link to the web site of a business that sells them, both because a business link does not show any independent evidence of significance of the concept and because links to business sites tend to be put into articles to attract potential customers to the web site, i.e. in order to use Wikipedia for spam.
2. I have looked at the page you gave as a "reference", and it does not support the statement to which you attached the "reference": nowhere in the page you linked to does it say that the spacers advertised can be "used to mount signage for businesses", nor that they "can be used to hang pictures and displays in doctors offices and many other locations". A so-called reference which gives no support for the statement to which it is attached is not a reference.
3. Your username makes it clear that you are working for the company to whose site you linked. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy: an account may not represent a business or other organisation, and so you must not continue to edit using the account. Also, editing for the purpose of promotion or advertising is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking into removal of most of my edits

Hello Watson (I read your intro and I'm a Holmes fan, so Watson it is)—you helped me a while ago regarding removing a contribution I made, when I accidentally contributed with an IP address. Now I have returned because I am wondering if it would be feasible and hopefully none too annoying to request hiding (not oversighting) from public view most, maybe 90% of my edits, eventually including this one? I'm asking because I have a few old edits from 2011 that I would like to use as "proof" for outside reasons, which would be viewed by the public, but many of my other edits, at least those providing information on my location and where I live and other topics, I am hoping can be hidden for good. I have less than 70 edits total, I believe. If this is possible, then I would consider this account "archived" and would never use it again, and I would create another account for any future random questions I like to ask on the wp:refdesk boards if something is bothering me. :) As of this moment, I'm simply looking for an answer by an admin, and what you think. Thank you so much for your time in this matter! Reflectionsinglass (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reflectionsinglass: Wikipedia's policy on revision deletion is very strict about using revision deletion only in very limited circumstances, because the nature of Wikipedia is that there is openness about every edit, and exceptions should be restricted to a few situations where there are very strong reasons. I have looked at a sample of your edits, and while I can see some that I can understand you may not like to have associated with yourself in real life, I did not see any that seemed to me to fall under the provisions of that policy. The policy covers such things as "Blatant copyright violations, Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, non-public, personal, or private information". If you can identify specific edits that might qualify, I can look at them, but on the basis of the sample I saw, I certainly don't think there is any question of hiding 90% of your edits, as you suggest. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Watson, I really appreciate your looking into this. I would definitely be going for "non-public, personal, or private information", although I suppose this is up for debate since my original intention with this account was to attain and maintain privacy, and I've done so for the most part—but coming into play now would be a deliberate decision on my part to point (somewhat publicly) to a couple of threads I made, and that act would make the comments I've left here more public. Whittling it down, what do you think about removing these edits, including reasoning behind requested removal:

• 20 March 13 – 3 edits in a row: My location [3] (this is more specific than general locations mentioned elsewhere)
• 28 November 2010 to 1 December 2010 – 5 edits in a row: Medical discussion [4]

That should knock it down to about 12% of my contributions :) Anyway, I'm very grateful for your time and I'm open for discussion before proceeding with any formal request. Reflectionsinglass (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reflectionsinglass: I have removed the edits you mentioned from your editing history.

I think I should make it perfectly clear what that means, to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Your comments, complete with your signature, are still visible in old versions of the pages, but they are not listed in your editing history, so nobody will find them from looking at your history. The chances of one of the people you have in mind just happening to be looking through those particular old revisions of that particular page from several years ago are so remote that it is virtually certain that they will not see your comments. The only way of completely hiding your comments, so that they are not visible at all, would be to delete all the versions of the pages from when you posted until the sections were archived. I checked one of the cases in detail, and found that your comment remained in the page for a few hours short of five days, during which time there were 569 edits, most of them not connected at all to your edits. I couldn't possibly justify permanently hiding a large number of other discussions, including hundreds of messages from other editors on other topics, just to make sure your comments are totally invisible. However, that shouldn't be necessary, since, as I have already said, nobody can find the edits from your editing history, and it would be a remarkable coincidence if someone relevant should just happen to go searching around in exactly the right part of the long past history of those old pages. (You can easily check that the edits are not listed in your editing history, by clicking on the links you gave in your message above.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reflectionsinglass: One other point which I didn't think to mention. The listing for those edits in the history of the pages in question does not show your username, so to see them an editor would have to be actually looking at old versions of one of the pages, not just looking at the page history. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining everything, it didn't even occur to me that this could affect 500+ other edits in one example. However, what you've done is perfect and helps me greatly, just to retain a little bit more privacy. I really appreciate your patience and understanding! Thank you again! Reflectionsinglass (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Problematic Wikihounding and personal attacks by FreeatlastChitchat

FreeatlastChitchat has been disruptively wikihounding my edits,(tool results) and been making personal attacks on talk pages, none of which he ever edited before I edited them. Even though it is obvious that none of his version has been accepted.

• "anyone who reads the article on Sanal Edamaruku and then comes here to say that "I have read their articles and they are not ciritics of any religion" is totally lying his ass off. Simple as that. The only other explanation is that the reader in question did not understand simple English, which of course will lead to competence issues"[5] - A page he never edited before and his discussion is rather supporting the ongoing WP:BLPCAT violation.

• "Are you high or something like that? I mean I do not want to call this attitude brainless but it kinda is."[6]

• [7]- because three reliable sources also included writer from India, it is not reliable and non-neutral to him.

Not to mention his removal of sourced content, that he WP:DONTLIKE,[8][9], Twinkle Rollback abuse,[10][11] misleading "minor edit" marking.[12]

Since your block, he has been warned many times for edit warring,[13][14][15] personal attacks,[16] false "minor edit" marking,[17] etc.[18]

Since he is aware of all guidelines and knows that not everyone has time to watch over his disruption, I thought of reporting his attitude here since it was you who had blocked him last time for a week.[19] D4iNa4 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do see some problems with FreeatlastChitchat's editing, but I also see considerable problems with your editing, and to a large extent FreeatlastChitchat's objections to your editing are justified. For example, to claim that H. L. Mencken and Sanal Edamaruku were not critics of religion was, frankly, absurd. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I went by the sources and their own articles as well. H. L. Mencken could be a critic, but Sanal Edamaruku is living person and is described as a rationalist and not as critic of religion or anti religion. Which source say that he is religious critic or if he calls himself as one?

And Freeatlastchitchat's edit warring on other article has probably violated three reverts.[20][21][22] D4iNa4 (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Killer Instinct

IP address user 70.51.171.198[23] has been vandalizing the Killer Instinct character pages Black Orchid[24], Jago[25] and Fulgore[26] since October and shows no signs of stopping.68.75.25.99 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The first step should be to explain to the editor why you disagree with his or her editing. Nobody has done that at all: there has never been any message posted to User talk:70.51.171.198, has there even been an edit summary explaining why his/her edits have been reverted. If and when the editor has been told of the concerns you have, and it makes no difference to the editing, then we can consider what other steps may be worth taking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just chiming in, all the content 70.51.171.198 has been adding to those pages is explicitly false, contradicting in-game content and sourced pages. Furthermore, it's not like this is the first time; he's used multiple IPs to add this same information for years, and many of his past IPs have been blocked for this. In fact, you yourself actually blocked one of these IPs just earlier this year. See: [27], [28], [29], and [30]. At this point, any suggestion of good faith is long gone. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. That makes a considerable difference. I shall look at the possibility of protecting the articles and/or blocking IP addresses. Thanks for the help. Knowing a bit of the earlier history is really helpful, instead of just knowing about the most recent editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to deal with it now, but I'll try to get back onto it tomorrow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have now looked at this in more detail. Unfortunately, there is no really effective way of dealing with this. I could block the IP address now, but that is likely to be fairly ineffective, as the editor has not edited for several days, and is likely to turn up on a different IP address. Blocking ranges of IP addresses is out of the question, because the editor has used IP addresses so widely scattered that huge numbers of other IP addresses would be blocked too. I would semi-protect the articles affected, if it weren't for the fact that there are many other IP edits from other editors on those articles. If you see more of the same, and let me know while it is happening, I can jump in and block whatever IP address is doing it at the time: that will not completely stop the problem, but it may significantly reduce it. Apart from protecting the articles, that is really all I can do. If you do contact me again about this, please refer back to this discussion, because if a significant time has passed I am unlikely to remember one of the large number of such cases I deal with. (If the original post above had linked to the block that I placed in January, my intitial response would have been very different.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible vandalism??

Hi, I have to log off now (must work!!) - if you have time can you check the edits of User49.150.169.136, e.g. to Malou de Guzman. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Not sure whether it's vandalism or not, but it's certainly unhelpful. I've posted a message to the IP talk page about it, and I shall revert the edits, using a different account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks and Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Thanks. I'll drink it this evening after dinner. JamesBWatson3 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You ask me

Hi

You ask me what are planning my sanbox. To education, physics and electrincs simulations, learn main the laws of physics, but very accessibly
But why are you ask. SmallTed — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallTed (talk • contribs) 17:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@SmallTed:

I find it difficult to understand what you say, as it is not expressed in coherent English, but it looks as though you are saying that the page is for your own study, to help you learn. I asked because it did not look as though the page was related to work for the encyclopaedia, and I wondered if you were using Wikipedia as a web host to hold a page for your own use, rather than editing to contribute to the encyclopaedia. If that is so, then the page should be deleted, as Wikipedia is not a free web host. However, rather than immediately deleting the page, I asked you what your intention was, so that you would have a chance to explain if in fact you did have a good use for it in connection with contributing to the encyclopaedia. In view of what you have said above, I shall now delete the page, but if it really is in some way aimed at contributing to the encyclopaedia, please explain how, and I can restore the page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Alex Sanz

Thank you for the feedback on this article.

At 15:06 on 13 October 2015, Alex Sanz provided permissions-en@wikimedia.org permission to publish content from http://www.AlexSanz.com under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. This permission had previously been extended to http://www.muckrack.com/alexsanz.

Similar articles exist on Wikipedia for journalists who are equally notable, including https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Aqui, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stehr, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micah_Ohlman, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Hughes, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Schneider_(news_anchor) and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Hall-Brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PressScribe (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@PressScribe: As you have probably seen by now, I have restored the article and nominated it for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion. I have been unable to find any evidence at all that Sanz satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Maybe some time when I have time I will look at the other articles you mention, and see whether you are right in saying that there subjects are "equally notable" as Sanz: if you are right, then they can be deleted too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

SmallTed answer

Thank you for the attention I am sorry for my English. My intension was make wiki page to teach young about electronics and explain uses NGpace, Newton engine than it is not difficult. To make this page requre more time, and I wont to do small step. But You have right, it may will not be encyclopaedia, and my work will be deleted. Now:

1. You may deleter this page and you will the right,
2. There's a possibility to keep this page and step by step make it is;
3. When You decide delete this page, give me choose to save work

I really thank you for lost time

Best regards, smallted — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallTed (talk • contribs) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@SmallTed: I'm afraid once again I am finding it difficult to understand your English, but I think you are saying that you wish to keep the page for a limited time, to use for teaching young people, off Wikipedia, and then have it deleted. If so, then the answer is that Wikipedia is not a web host to be used for purposes unrelated to work for the encyclopaedia, even for a limited time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2

What is this place and why the CluBot NG reported User:Kmatterhorn here. He was only creating a book article.--Galaxy Kid (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Galaxy Kid: The editor did not create the article: he or she edited an article which already existed. Also, he or she repeatedly removed content without giving any reason, and repeatedly added content which was copied from another source, blatantly infringing copyright, and edit-warred. What aspect of the editing prompted CluBot NG to report the editor I don't know, but it was a perfectly good report on an editor with several problems, which needed to be dealt with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What is TB2; Only bots can report users here; Are there any other such like TB1? --Galaxy Kid (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Galaxy Kid: An interesting question. There is no Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB1, as you can confirm if you click on that red link. Years ago I wondered why the bot-report page for AIV was called "TB2", but long ago I got so used to that title that I just forgot about the question. When I saw your question about it here, though, I looked at the history of the page, and I found that when the page was first created, back in 2006, it used to be edited by a bot called "Tawkerbot2", so TB2 must be an abbreviation for that. Tawkerbot2 was operated by an editor who used the username "Tawker", and there were also Tawkerbot, Tawkerbot3, and Tawkerbot4, but they all stopped editing years ago. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Contributor to Travelyaari

Dear James, Thanks your messages. being a new users, I am though unsure how the content that was reverted back is a promotional content. My interest in updating an old wikipedia page Travelyaari was obvious as the information there was outdated and not current and hence being someone who knows the information, I felt it was right to provide them as other organization / company pages on Wikipedia is made. If I missed anything please cite the link to how those pages are non-promotional but my edit were promotional Aks vicky (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The article was subjected to extensive editing in a short period by two new accounts: between the two of them, the two accounts made more edits in a little over 24 hours than had been made to the article in over two and a half years. Some of the content added was blatant marketing copy, while other edits added links which appeared to serve the purpose of attracting potential customers to various web pages associated with the business. It was entirely clear that this was a concerted effort to edit the article on behalf of the company, for promotional purposes. The new version of the article read more like an advertising brochure than like an objective, neutral account. After the promotional editing was reverted, an anonymous editor, editing from the city in which the company is based, restored it. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was another attempt by the company to use Wikipedia for advertising purposes, most probably by one of the two editors who had done so before. Most probably it was the editor who had just previously edited, namely you, which was why I posted a message to your talk page about it, though of course I can't be certain of that.

I fully understand what you mean about information being "outdated and not current", but there is a considerable difference between neutral updating of information and adding promotional or marketing content.

Unfortunately, there are many other articles about companies which are full of spam posted on behalf of those companies. When it is noticed it can be removed, but often it remains for a long time before it is seen by any of the editors who work at preventing Wikipedia from being used for advertising. The presence of advertising content in some articles does not justify its presence in others.

It seems likely that you are working for the company you have been editing about. If so, you should read Wikipedia's guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. Also, if you are working for the company, you must say so. That is not optional: Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure if editing is associated with any paid work, whether as an employee, a contractor, or otherwise. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Travelyaari revert

	Travelyaari revert
	Please let me know how a wikipedia page talking about a company or an organization can be updated with latest facts and figures than stale content. Aks vicky (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Anna Olson

I fail to see notice of any proposed deletion on that article nor do I see any deadlinks. That notice you left me was in error. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: You "fail to see" the proposed deletion notice because it has been removed by Rhododendrites. One link is currently dead: http://www.annaolson.ca/page/about_anna gives me "Error 404" when I try to access it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

All you had to do was great the link for the "About Anna" section of her website. As well, you can use archived version of that as well. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)`

@Fishhead2100: Sorry, what does it mean to "great" a link? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Powerball Golf Deletion

Hi

3 years ago I wrote an article entitled Powerball Golf to raise awareness and promote the sport around Durham and it's University, and hopefully spread records, results and history to play Nationwide.

You deleted it for so called 'vandalism'.

I would like to know why exactly it was deleted, and if it could be reinstated, or indeed if I could have the transcript back to post again in another format.

Thanks

JonnyClark1990 (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"Vandalism" may not have been the best deletion reason to give, but I gave that because the article was viewed at a deletion discussion as being a hoax. However, I have now changed the deletion log reason to reference that discussion, which is really a better way of explaining the deletion, since it enables one to see the reasons given in the discussion.

Using Wikipedia to "to raise awareness and promote" anything is against Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a medium for publicising, promoting, or advertising anything.

Neither at the time of the deletion discussion nor now has there been any evidence that this game is notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopaedia article. I have searched, and failed to find any mention of the game in any reliable source anywhere. Every appearance is that it was a game made up by a group of friends, and in all probability unknown outside their circle. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about just anything, and topics which fail to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not qualify to be subjects of articles.

Assuming that by "to post again in another format" you mean to post again in Wikipedia, the answer is "no", and will continue to be "no" unless and until the subject comes to be sufficiently prominent as to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia policy is that once a page has been deleted as the result of consensus at a deletion discussion, if it is reposted to any Wikipedia page, it may be speedily deleted without notice, unless the reasons for deletion are no longer valid, which is clearly not so in this case. If, however, you mean that you wish to post it to somewhere other than Wikipedia, let me know, and I can email it to you, provided you enable Wikipedia email on your account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Raising awareness is not a sufficient reason to have that article on Wikipedia. If you can cite and show its notability, than it might warrant sticking around. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Victoria Mendoza

Please userfy article and talk page i'll fix whatever issues this person won Miss World America 2015 [31] and is notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You are 100% welcome to create a new article on the subject, but you can't "fix" the issue which led to it being deleted by having it userfied and editing it, as it would still be created by a blocked editor in defiance of a block. Nothing we can do guarantees that a blocked editor who has used sockpuppets will not continue to do so, but experience indicates that one of the most effective ways of making it less likely is for them to find that whatever they post disappears and does not come back. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately without admin privileges I am both unable to see the dispute and who the editor in question was. Based on your response it looks like there is a workable draft. If possible, could you userfy the page to my space anyways. Instead of restoring the page history to the main space, I'll restore an edited version and ping you to delete the userfy draft out of my space as soon as possible. As an editor I prefer to work on an established backbone with categories and templates included, makes it easier for me. It will be the first thing I work on when I log in next. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Zurich00swiss

Since you have had past issues with this user, I hsve came to you. He put a false warning on my talk page about sources. Only to realize that no edit of mine has been reverted, so this warning is completely random. You may want to have a little word with him, thanks. 84.92.163.184 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@84.92.163.184, Also you put in my user page a false warning about mistake in HolidayJet's page that I never made.--The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Babitaarora

Repected sir, I'm Babitaarora. I sent you an email, but you didn't reply me. I still say that I've never done anything wrong (sockpuppetry) nor i did paid editing. You have given another chance to many users, just because they admitted their mistake. I didn't do anything wrong, so why should I accept the mistake. My mistake, just so that I didn't tell you about the use of same device. I want to continue my job. I promise I willn't give you a chance to complain. Please, please give me a chance so I could prove myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.58.160 (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I will reply to this on the talk page of your account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer

I have reviewed Davefelmer's unblock request and have asked for your comments. Please could you take a look when you have a minute? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Babitaarora

I have edited many Indian film and television related articles, Babitaarora never spammed or promoted any non-notable actor. On the other hand, lots of unblocked users are getting away with paid editing. I have managed to stop spammers with the help of Cyphoidbomb, MERC X.

I was thinking what you were thinking--She is unrelated to other batch and her recent edits don't show anything suspicious. I read your message in her talk page and Bbb23's page. I have come across talk page of IP-vandals where old messages of Babita's warning is present. Whether they are Brother-Sister or not, only they know. There is excessive spammers and promotional edit in Bollywood and Indian television articles. Without her help, we will suffer. She is one of the most-active Indian female Wikipedian after Netha Hussain and Mala chaubey according to this list Wikipedia:WikiProject India/List of Indian Wikipedians by number of edits. They may not be siblings. In North/East/West and Central India first cousins are also treated as brothers and sisters. Chander claims to have the surname Sachdeva while Babita's surname is Arora. Both surnames are Punjabi. Indians living in cities do allow their nephews and niece to stay with them when they take admission in city university/college. Her block is a big jolt to Wikiproject India.

Going through her talk page history i couldn't find any recent warning by anybody. If any administrator can show me that previously Babita was warned for writing promotional content, spamming, edit-warring or disruptive editing, it would be very helpful.

Actually in India, parents don't purchase separate laptops and PCs for their kids, if they are from middle income group. So, even if Babitaarora is unblocked, she cant stop her possible cousin Chander from editing, and she can be blamed again.The Avengers (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Avengers: Thanks for those comments, which include several interesting points. Concerning the last point you mention, of course you are right in saying that she can't prevent her cousin, brother, or whatever he is from editing: but unless she lets him use her account, that is true whether she is unblocked or not, and there is no reason to suppose she will let him do so. Yes, she may get blamed again, and unfortunately there is no way we can protect her against that risk, but I think we should give her every chance we can, and keeping her blocked on the basis that someone else may do something we wouldn't like is not reasonable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Michael Miller Sandbox

Yes, James I was planning on working on the Computational Anatomy history and document the contributions so it can enter Wikipedia. I want to let my publishing colleagues two or three add to it once it has its sections.

What is not consistent accordint to your comments? I haven't yet gone back and put it in passive voice but will. It is certainly documented via reliable sources.

thank-you Mim.cis (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw your post on my Liver Trust article, I'm not paid I'm just a volunteer whose been asked to make a page to give people some information on the chairty and this was the user name I was told to use. As for promotional I can see you've edited some bits and I did not realise there was a polciy to violate. As for sources, sources outside their website is non existant so I used what sources I had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLT298858 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Giant panda

I don't know what you've done to this article. Your edit summary is so long that only part of it shows up on the history. It was made PC so that IPs could edit it - you know, "Wikipedia - the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" - but since your change I'm getting a "registered editors only" message". Please put it back the way it was. 188.222.58.239 (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

For years the article has been subject to vandalism. It has been protected repeatedly, but each time the protection expires the vandalism returns. Attempts to replace semi-protection with "pending changes" have been tried, but each time the attempt has failed. "Pending changes" stops the vandalism from being visible to non-logged-in readers of the encyclopaedia, but it neither prevents logged-in readers from seeing a damaged version of the article nor prevents the endless waste of time for editors who revert the vandalism edits, time which could be more fruitfully used on other tasks. If you wish to edit and find you can't, then I suggest you do what I did years ago when I found I couldn't edit because vandals had caused the IP address of my local library to be blocked: I created an account. It takes less than a minute to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think that registered editors see anything different from everybody else when reading articles? I still don't know what you have done to this article. Please provide the complete version of your long edit summary. 188.222.58.239 (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

1. What makes me think that registered editors see anything different from everybody else when reading articles? Well, I first knew that years ago, when I read about how pending changes works, and since then I have confirmed it by looking at an article that has changes pending without logging in, and then logging in and looking at the same article again. A user who is not logged in sees the last version before any changes which are currently pending, but a logged-in established registered editor sees the version after those changes.
2. The full version of my protection log entry, an abbreviated version of which appears in the editing history as an edit summary, is visible here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just discovered something which you may or may not find interesting. Thinking about what you have said prompted me to look through all the recent entries in the pending changes log. I found that almost all of the articles which have recently had pending changes set have subsequently had semi-protection put in place, because it was found that pending changes just wasn't working. I knew that pending changes failed in some articles (as, for example, in the giant panda article) but I had never before known that it failed in almost all articles where it was applied. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A consensus was reached some years ago to remove Pending Changes from all articles. At the Village pump the community decided that indefinite semi - protection of articles would not be permitted in the future. Please apply a time limit to this. 188.222.58.239 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I m a newby/Rizin Fighting Federation deletion... why?

Hey, you deleted that brand new page that I created today. Could you please explain the reason, I dodn't understand... I am new to Wiki editing world. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarkostar (talk • contribs) 21:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Monarkostar (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The original article on the subject was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizin Fighting Federation, and there was a very clear consensus that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I would say that the new version if anything had even less indication of notability than the earlier one. While some problems with articles can be solved by editing to improve the article, no amount of editing an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC). 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.

The Avengers (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)