User talk:JBW/Archive 73

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JBW. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

moe. (band) page move

Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that, per Wikipedia's rules (here), this page be moved. The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd , and k.d. lang. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Lane swerve. :) The band's page is mostly consistent with using lowercase. The page doesn't move, for technical reasons, all wikipedia pages start with a capital letter, but by adding {{lowercase}}, I have made it display with lowercase, like k.d. lang.Naraht (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Child Family Health International

Hi! I edited the Child Family Health International Page on Friday June 22, and I got a notification that it was deleted because of unambiguous promotional/advertising. I emailed the WIkipedia Volunteer Reposnse Team and now I understand why my edited version was promotional. THey said you would be able to restore the intial webpage (the version without my edits as of Thursday, June 21). Thank you, and please let me know how I can help with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.30.97 (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the article and moved it to Draft:Child Family Health International. You can edit it there to make it more acceptable, and when you think it's ready you can submit the draft for review by clicking the link labelled "Submit your draft for review!" An experienced editor will then assess the draft, and either restore it as an article or give you information as to what he or she thinks still needs doing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll start editing the Child Family Health International Draft page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:1E22:0:2896:475B:A248:4D35 (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I edited the draft but I don't seem to be able to click the submit item for review button. could you help me with that? link to what ive edited: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Child_Family_Health_International&action=edit&gettingStartedReturn=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithCE421 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithCE421 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What to do now re Couiros22

Hi James, I note that you have blocked User:Couiros22 for being a block evading sockpuppet. I had been going through the editor's contributions list, reverting their biota edits where they had moved the first mentioned name in the article away from the article title (when it is a scientific name) to the vernacular names or one of the multiple names using their idiosincratic choice. I have not reverted any of their categorisation changes, as that is not my area of expertise, but I note that other editors have questioned their categorisation scheme and I specifically asked the editor what scheme they were using without success. Since the editor has made literally thousands of edits to biota related articles along these lines in the last few months, my question is what is the best way to deal with the issue. Should I just keep on patiently going through their contributiono, fixing the naming issue and leave the categorisation issues to others, or should there be some sort of automated reversion of all their edits that are still the current version and then clean up the remainder manually? Thanks in advance for your advice. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll be looking at C22's categorization edits, but it may take a while. DexDor^(talk) 16:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne:, @DexDor:: up to about two weeks ago when they were blocked, fellow sock Caftaric was also highly active with a similar editing behaviour, categorization nonsense and lack of communication—and ridiculously prolific, too, hitting over 96,000 edits before getting blocked. Between those two accounts we're looking at somewhere in the vicinity of 115,000 edits that need to be looked at, many of which are related to categorization. I suspect it might be a good idea to coordinate our work. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately at present I am extremely short of time, and can't give a detailed answer to the comments mentioned here. However, here is a very short answer, which I may come back and extend when I have time. This is an editor who has been doing the same kind of thing since at least as far back as 2011, using at least six accounts, maybe more. There has always been consensus against the editor, but he or she clearly doesn't care, evidently believing that he or she is RIGHT and anyone who disagrees can just be ignored. There is an enormous mess as a result, the editor having often edited so rapidly that I am convinced an unapproved bot must have been used. The subject is one I know very little about, so that I won't be able to give much help or advice relating to the specific issues, as opposed to general Wikipedia policy issues. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed a huge clean-up problem. Perhaps this thread should be moved to a more central point for planning and the way ahead? Loopy30 (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks James, general Wikipedia policy advice is what I'm after, no rush. Loopy30, I agree, I'm just not sure where exactly we should go to organise this. I'm assuming that we have a massive task ahead of us and we may need some expert assistance in cleaning up the mess. I had thought that possibly the WikiProject Fishes might be a good place for the fish aspects, but then there is birds and possibly plants and I don't know what else, so I wonder if there is some overarching place where we can determins an overall strategy and then take it to the various projects. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne:, @Loopy30: WP:WikiProject Tree of Life would probably be the best fit (with notification cross-posts to the various relevant subprojects like Fishes, Insects, Lepidoptera, Birds, etc.) though it's not exactly the most active place on en.wiki.

I've already started a discussion (in so far as one response in a week can be considered a discussion) regarding the Lepidoptera side of matters (at least as far as Caftaric goes; there's still traces of old NotWith nonsense there too and I haven't yet had time to look into whether C22 edited Lepidoptera-related subjects as well) on the Lepidoptera WikiProject talkpage with a crossposted notification to Tree of Life, and presuming my proposal gets no opposition, I intend to implement everything that can be done by a non-sysop in a few days (28th or thereabout. That'd give everyone ten days to respond to my original posting and a full week to respond to my clarified proposal of action, after which I'm, in absence of opposition, going to presume I have an implied consensus) and after that list those categories emptied and not of use on CfD. (Sadly, G5 shouldn't be used on categories per the criteria)

A similar mess exists in regards to Caftaric's creation of stub-categories and templates. I'm working on a full post to bring to WikiProject Stub Sorting with all relevant information put in a table (name of template; number of articles in category; whether stand-alone or upmerged template; whether listed on the stub types page), but it's a fair bit of work and I might need another day or two to have my information post-ready. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that WP:TOL would be a good coord point for clean-up of categories for flora and fauna articles, it's one that I had in mind too. Is there anywhere to post the sanctions and actions taken against Caftaric? Perhaps Category talk:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nono64? Also, the cross-wiki nature of his/her abuse extends globally. Couiros22 has edits in over 60 wiki projects, is there a venue at meta.wiki to post Caftaric/Couiros22's block history to? Loopy30 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm, good questions, Loopy30. (By the way, do you want me to keep pinging you when I respond or are you watching this page anyway?)

It would be a somewhat unorthodox solution, but the only thing I could think of in regards of en.wiki is opening an LTA case. It might not be the kind of situation that immediately jumps to mind to most people when thinking "LTA", but in my opinion, the sheer scale of disruption combined with the repeated socking and block evasion would justify it—but it probably would be a good idea to ask a few more opinions before creating such a report. As far as global behaviour and meta venues, I wouldn't know, sorry. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne, AddWittyNameHere, and Loopy30: First of all, for the sake of clarity, I will expand on what I meant when I wrote "I won't be able to give much help or advice relating to the specific issues, as opposed to general Wikipedia policy issues". I have neither sufficient experience of the biological issues involved nor sufficient experience of the way the categorisation system is operated to be any help with the actual clean up process. My invovlement has been purely in my capacity as an administrator, dealing with an editor who has persistently flouted various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (E.g. sockpuppetry, using an unapproved bot, editing against consensus, edit-warring, etc.) On the whole I think AddWittyNameHere's suggestion of opening a long term abuse case is probably a good idea. Taking it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life in the hope of getting help may also be worthwhile, but I know nothing about that WikiProject, so I can't say. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That was what I at least figured you meant, yes. Thankfully we've got some folks around knowing about the taxonomy of at least particular subject areas (Lepidoptera for me especially, other insects and arachnids to a lesser degree, and as a result I'm familiar enough with general taxonomy that I can read, understand and apply references regarding other zoological areas even if outside my general field of knowledge so long as the sources don't presume significant familiarity with the taxonomical state of more complex cases. I suspect the same goes for most people in other parts of the tree of life: they might be most familiar with a particular field, but should be able to handle most non-complex cases in different taxonomical fields as well so long as sources are accessible). What we don't have many of are people with administrative capacities, so it's good to know you're around and familiar with the case even if not the subject matter.

My hope in regards to an LTA case is two-fold: on the one hand, it should reduce the amount of confusion and/or resistance clean-up ventures run into. On the other hand, it hopefully might allow their newest sock (because sooner or later they will pop up again) to be discovered faster, at utter least before they rack up a six-figure amount of edits again. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we are all singing from the same song sheet here. My particular area of knowledge is more with fish, especially Australian freshwater fish, but I am reasonably comfortable with how the taxonomic system works and I also would be able to help out in other areas that are not too complex. I don't think it would be wise for me to take a lead in this issue, but I am a willing helper/worker. Just ping me once we get something started and I'll pitch in with whatever help I am able. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there any reasons to keep Cetoscarus ocellatus deleted? —innotata 00:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

If you mean "is there any reason why another editor should not independently create a new article under the same title" then I don't know of any. I deleted it because it was created by a block-evading sockpuppet, which would clearly not be so in that situation. If, however, you mean "is there any reason why the deleted article should not be restored", then my answer is that over the years I have found that the single most effective deterrent to long-term users of numerous sockpuppet accounts is for them to see that anything they do is likely to disappear and not come back, so I think it far better not to restore the same article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if there's nothing objectionable about the content; even if other users have contributed? I can't see the article, so I don't know whether it's fleshed out, and even if it's a stub, you're making editors in the subect do busywork that was already done before. Since when did admins have this destructive power to remove parts of the encyclopedia with no inherent issues, messing up other articles as with Cetoscarus and the taxonomic categories here, just to send a message? That doesn't seem appropriate to me. —innotata 21:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The total contributions of other editors consisted of adding an "unreferenced" tag and reversing the order of the scientific name and a vernacular English name at the start of the first sentence. The article consisted of two short sentences and an infobox. I am not sure what you mean by "just" to send a message, but if you mean that it is not worth while doing what little can be done to dissuade disruptive editors from persistently coming back with strings of sockpuppets to continue their disruptive editing, then I don't agree. Often a balance has to be struck between conflicting desirable aims. The policy that pages created by banned editors are subject to speedy deletion dates from 2005, and it was extended to cover blocked editors as a result of consensus at a community discussion in 2010. It has been discussed again at various times since then, always with the outcome that there is consensus in support of the policy. The limitation of the policy to pages with no substantial edits by others dates from 2008. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know that there aren't any other substantial edits and that it was unreferenced. I cannot agree that reverting so broadly is productive; you left connected articles in confusing states that would be hard for an unexperienced editor to fix. —innotata 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia for?

Thank you for your comment to me earlier. I think it would help me if you could explain a bit more the idea of Wikipedia. I wonder if your view of Wikepedia is less ambitious than the use actually made of it? You say that "Generally speaking, a Wikipedia article should be written to read. It should not be used as a catalogue, directory, or database of information for readers to follow up". Yet all those functions are part of being informative. That is exactly how I use it myself in my work as a rare bookseller when cataloguing items and needing information on authors and ideas. To me Wikipedia has overtaken many traditional means of research. I need to use my own reference library less and less. Being an entertaining read does not seem to recognise its actual and most significant contribution today. For me it is slowly taking over as a source of information because it provides the hard details of factual and conceptual knowledge. A bibliography is a central element in mapping the development of a writer's ideas. It would be my intention to amend the existing Wikipedia article to relate its text to the author's books to illustrate that. Not being able to have at least a substantial list of them would make that much vaguer. It is also participatory as it enables the reader of the article to make their own investigations of those ideas by obtaining the books for themselves. Details of publication help with that. It seems to me that to require Wikipedia's bibliographies to be partial and undetailed obstructs knowledge and relegates Wikipedia to the sub professional level and limits peer participation. Good Pharisee (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Good Pharisee: I fully understand what you are saying, but it is not in line with Wikipedia practice. Rightly or wrongly, such extensive listing in an article is considered unsuitable. Wikipedia does not set out to include every kind of information there is, but sets itself more restricted aims. You may like to check the link WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY, which will take you to a section of the policy What Wikipedia is not titled "Wikipedia is not a directory". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the courteous reply. One further brief try and two question: BREIF TRY The following appears on the Vandalism page: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." This is what excites one about Wikipedia. But how can the sum of human knowledge be built by partial treatments and specifically by partial bibliographies which are particularly essential as the routes to further knowledge ? QUESTIONS Accepting a full bibliography is not allowed: The link you gave does not actually say anything about bibliography (I believe - as the links in pages are not yet easy for me). The existing bibliograhy on the site I edited is inconsistent and does not give a balanced sample. What counts as an allowablly sized sample? Secondly, can one put an external link to a page on which a full bibliography is placed? Good Pharisee (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Good Pharisee: Your account is now autoconfiremd, which means that you can edit my main talk page instead of User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, so I have moved this conversation over here.

I believe that "the sum of all human knowledge" is a quotation from Jimmy Wales in the very early days of Wikipedia. It sounds impressive, but it is not at all realistic if taken absolutely literally. I know what I ate for breakfast this morning, so that is part of human knowledge, but it would not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. That is not a flippant example: I am using it to illustrate that to be realistic we have to have some sort of cutoff between what is considered suitable for inclusion and what isn't, and the issue is where that cutoff comes.

You are right, despite its name the link WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY actually leads to a policy section which does not explicitly mention bibliographies, and for that reason I hesitated before giving you the link, but I decided that even so what it says there does give some indication of the idea that excessive lists are not considered suitable. I am not sure why the link is labelled NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY, but maybe at one time in the past the policy did explicitly mention bibliographies, or maybe someone just thought that while the policy section gives some examples of the kinds of listings that it refers to rather than an exhaustive list, and that bibliographies were an example of the kinds of things intended. It might well be possible to find the answer by searching through the history of the policy.

You ask "What counts as an allowablly sized sample?" Unfortunately that is the kind of thing for which it is impossible to give an answer. I feel that the extensive bibliography that you gave went well beyond the sort of thing which is usually considered suitable, but there is no definition or clear consensus-supported cutoff. I am sincerely sorry that I can't be more helpful than that.

You ask "Secondly, can one put an external link to a page on which a full bibliography is placed?" Perhaps I can be a bit more helpful on that. Personally I don't see any reason at all why you shouldn't, and indeed I would go so far as to say that I think it is a very good idea. I have just checked the guideline Wikipedia:External links, and I can't see anything there that should prevent you from adding the kind of link you have in mind. (Sorry to throw all these policies and guidelines at you. My personal opinion is that by far the worst change that has happened to Wikipedia over the years is the vast growth of policies and guidelines. There are far too many of them, and they are far too long and detailed. It was far better in the early days of Wikipedia, when there was just a handful of brief sentences, all on one short page, giving general principles to be followed.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

James Fell

Why did you delete the James Fell wikipedia page??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markass530 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Markass530: I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never deleted the article James Fell, nor did I even know it existed until I saw that you had asked this question. Nobody else has deleted that article either. If you mean some other page, can you make it clearer what page you have in mind? If so I may be able to answer. (Sorry I didn't answer before, but you put it in an old section of this page about something completely different, so I didn't notice it until now.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My Edit on Ingsoc

I noticed you messaged me about my failure to disclose my edits. My apologies, I am new to Wikipedia and I apologize for my mistake. I noted a common occurrence in right-wing media, I included one source but I plan to add one or two more on my section Palpatrump (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Palpatrump: I have never given you any message about your editing at Ingsoc, and the message I sent you about editing of another article was about a grossly misleading edit summary, not about sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Modules

Please make sure to delete the /sandbox subpages of modules when you delete the main module. In this case, Module:PassArguments/sandbox needs to be deleted. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Foonly F1

Hello JamesBWatson, Please, could you recover the page Foonly F1 you have just deleted. As i wrote in talk page, the Foonly F1 is a computer, famous because of film Tron, and I have lot of things to write about it. Like the Cray-1 is not in the Cray article because its famous, or the CDC 1604 in the CDC article, I prefer to create a distinct page for the Foonly F1 (to be honest, the Foonly F1 is famous, nobody cares about Foonly Inc company). It will be sad to hide the Foonly F1 article in the Foonly Inc page. More generally, in Wikipedia, products and companies have distinct pages. And, really, there is absolutely NO duplicate content between both. I'm a very experienced and old Wikipedia editor, and I always do the things right. I will be very pleased if you could consider and understand my arguments. Thank you very much. --FlyAkwa (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@FlyAkwa: None of the things you say justifies the fork in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as your WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, or the statement that it's "famous". Nevertheless, I have restored the article and redirected it to the main article. If you think it's worth it, you can make it back into an article and we can take it to AfD.

I can't help wondering why you mention how long you have been a Wikipedia editor and how "experienced" you are. Do you for think that being an "old and experienced" editor give your opinions more weight? However, although it is irrelevant, since you mention it I have checked, purely out of interest. I see that you have made just over 900 edits. I could easily point you to editors who have been here longer than you and who have done more edits than that per week when they have been at their most active, if for some reason you think it's relevant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, I never said I made more edits than others (I have a real life, along Wikipedia). I just said I'm not an inexperienced user, those can try to create useless pages. I already created pages on Wikipedia EN & Wikipedia FR, I "manage" some pages, and I know all the rules and guidelines (even WP:OTHERSTUFF). In the present case, I have considered as reasonable to create a separate page for the Foonly F1, because there is a lot to write about it. That's why I wrote "I'm a very experienced and old Wikipedia editor, and I always do the things right". I don't know if my experience gave my opinions more weight, but, clearly, currently, your opinion has more weight than mine. --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, my opinion carries no more weight than yours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Category:Sphaeroceroidea genera

It seems that you deleted Category:Sphaeroceroidea genera on 17 June 2018, however without removing the category from the articles that were in the category. Consequently the category designation is still present in all the articles, but as a redlink. Probably the best thing you can do is to recreate the category and to nominate it for deletion at WP:CFD according to the normal procedures. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The same applies to Category:Diopsoidea genera. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand at all what would be the purpose of creating the category and then nominating it for deletion. As for redlinked categories, I don't see that they are much different from other red links, such as the red linked species at Pullimosina. You are, however, free to recreate the categories if you think they would be beneficial, or to remove them from articles if you think that would be better. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If you think there is a good reason why these categories shouldn't exist, it is also pointless to keep these redlinks, isn't it? In the WP:CFD process the redlinks are removed from the articles by a bot that is activated by the admin who closes the discussion so that's much more efficient and transparant. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, now I understand your point, I think. I have restored the categories, as that is the simplest way of dealing with it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Malinao1234

Hernando Sibugan and Honorio Navarro were respectable persona in our town as well in the Southern Part of the Philippine Island. Their life must be added to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinao1234 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Malinao1234: Being "respectable" does not form any part of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I like to think that I am respectable, but I am nowhere near notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I do not think that Adolf Hitler was respectable, but he is certainly far more notable than the minimum required to be the subject of an article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD Keep

Hi,

First time I've actually come to thank an AfD closer but thought I would for your close on FinCon - while !votes lacking arguments often have reduced value, most cases I've seen like this would still have been no-consensed, and seeing an admin give the delete was a pleasant surprise - so thanks for that :)

I also want to say that I am very disappointed you have never met anyone called Mountain Jumper. Clearly you are meeting the wrong people ;)

Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Thanks, it is encouraging to occasionally be told that someone somewhere appreciates my efforts. I don't do a great deal of AfD closing, but in my experience a depressingly large proportion of those who do actually come far closer than policy says they should to treating them as votes, rather than weighing the arguments against guidelines and policies. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello and thank you for your comment I am new at this and by no means whatsoever was I trying to be disruptive in any of my edits let me assure you that when I make an edit on here it is to improve the quality of the website there was an article written recently about artificial intelligence that referenced some European location that didn't exist so I created a talk page for that specific topic I did not create the initial document I was commenting on the one that was already on the website any advice would be fine from you but I do not do anything disruptive on purpose I apologize for any confusion in advance forward to learning how to become a 12-year veteran like yourself my career in the rain is over and I have nothing but time on my hands help others learn about my profession and about who I am and what I can do to contribute to the validity of this website I am also the beta testers with everything I do on here is in beta form. 🇺🇸 WildBullMiller (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Answered at User talk:WildBullMiller. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the brief Talk Page protection

With any luck, nothing like it will be needed again. I was performing a WP:FIXDABLINKS exercise on Chandra Mohan (actor), and five IP editors (three of whom posted on my Talk Page) took exception to it. There were 3 bad links to that redirect out of 300 or so, which was 3 too many. Fingers crossed – seven hours since I retargetted it, and it's still clean. Narky Blert (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: In view of other editing by the same person from several IP addresses (or, possibly but I think less likely, several people working together) I think it was in fact just plain vandalism rather than someone genuinely disagreeing with your editing. However, whichever it was, if you see any more of it please feel free to let me know, and I'll look at it and see if I think any further admin action is needed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Seeking help

James, a while back you offered some help dealing with uncivil editing and attacks by Legacypac [[1]]. Could I ask you to tell him to drop the bad faith accusations? I'm really tired of BS like this [[2]]. Disagreements are one thing but this sort of bad faith accusation, even after being blocked for it [[3]] suggests the editor thinks the rules just don't apply to him. Any suggestions or help would be appreciated. Springee (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: First of all, sorry for not answering earlier. I saw your message at the same time as I saw another message on this page and several notifications of other things, and yours got forgotten as I dealt with the others.

I totally sympathise with you, but I'm afraid I really don't know what can be done about it. For me to tell Legacypac to drop the bad faith accusations, as you suggest, would be unlikely to achieve anything, because past experience shows that he takes absolutely no notice at all. Even when I blocked him, nothing whatever was achieved, as a group of other people came along and decided I was wrong and the block was lifted without even informing me, let alone consulting me. At least part of the problem is that there is a very common but in my opinion totally asinine view that people who are seen as doing a lot of good editing (particularly, for some reason, creating new articles) should be allowed to get away with being offensive and uncivil to other editors, and that those editors are exempt from following Wikipedia policy, and immune to the blocking policy. Time and time again over the years I have seen discussions where editors with that idiotic opinion have dominated the discussion, so that they have been able to get "consensus" against action being taken against people worse than Legacypac, or at the least to prevent there being consensus for such action. Much as I would like to help you, as I have said, nothing I have done in the past has achieved anything at all, and I really don't think that there is anything I can do that has any chance of any success whatever. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:LucieEisenberg2

FYI, that was a spambot account. I blocked it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: Yes, I recognised it as a spambot account, and I have no idea why I didn't just block it. I can't think what was going through my mind. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Cyril Ogwu and Draft:Cyril Ogwu

You might want to look at Draft:Prophet Cyril Ogwu too, Libertydavid, who is obviously not a brand new user, seems to be creating duplicates of the article all over the place now... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Yes, I had I have many concerns over this editor's editing, and have posted messages about some of them to his talk page. I agree that some aspects of his editing look like an experienced editor, but there are more aspects of his editing that look like a new editor who has jumped in without taking the time to learn what is suitable. If you can find a link to a specific account that this one seems to be a sockpuppet of, then please let me know. (I have compared his editing to that of both Darcruz iyari and Darcruz iyari's known sockpuppets, and I don't see any evidence of a connection.) Otherwise, my guess is that it's a question of waiting until the list of unconstructive editing builds up so far that it leads to a WP:CIR block. If you see any new problems I suggest you consider posting messages to his talk page about them. That stands to possibly help in at least two ways: he may possibly learn from what he is told and improve, and if not then having the problems documented may be helpful if and when it does reach the time when further action needs to be considered. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

Okay thank you I read your response and I will try to do everything that you said it is extremely difficult to do anything on here because of what you indicated on your response. I appreciate you taking time out of your day to clarify that I am not a vandal and I'm not trying to do anything wrong. I'm just a guy that lost his leg and I want to update my passion which was wrestling. I deal with this kind of crap with the state of Ohio all the time. They try to dip into our profits by getting having us license events. They say we are a sport in some Arenas and then in other Arenas they say we're not it's just a bunch of political mumbo jumbo, in the meantime I do appreciate your subject matter expert opinions and will try to be a better editor. Thank you for your time, God bless you, and God bless America 🇺🇸WildBullMiller (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@WildBullMiller: I'm sure you are not trying to do anything wrong. I thought you were at first, but I now realise that was a mistake. Starting editing Wikipedia can be confusing and even intimidating, as you find all sorts of things you are supposed to do that you didn't have any reason to expect. I do know what that's like, because I went through it when I started, but it does get better as you get more used to how things work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Request on 11:23:57, 23 July 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Lennix Moon

Lennix Moon (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Apps4.Store (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am trying to submit an article about Apps4.Store and for the second time, it gets rejected. Please, tell me what I need to change in the app, so it could be accepted.

Waiting for your response. Regards.

Lennix Moon (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Answered on Lennix Moon's talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, My article has been deleted. Why such companies like Microsoft Store, Apptoid can be bublished and Apps4.Store is not??? How come they are not considered as adverts??

Waiting for your response. Regards.

Lennix Moon (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lennix Moon: You are trying to use Wikipedia to advertise your company. You know that you are, so I am not going to waste my time trying to explain to you what yo already know. As for Microsoft Store, it is not perfect, and there is certainly room for improvement. Now that you have drawn my attention to it I may consider trying to improve it. However, if you really can't see the difference between that article and the unmistakable spam you have posted, then I scarcely know where to start explaining it to you. Just look at it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry. I somehow accidentally blocked you instead of an IP. I have spoiled your previously spotless block log. :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Edgar181: After all these years. Now I have to crawl into a corner and cry.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The same boneheaded admin has done it to me too. Twice. Blocklog for "Edgar181" -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Edgar181: Hmm. Once, an understandable mistake, that we could all make. (Yes, incredible though it may seem, even I have been known to make mistakes, once or twice.) Twice, it's beginning to look like a WP:CIR failure. Three times? I think I'll start an arbcom case and ask for desysopping. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Sh*t happens every now and then... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Finally you've got yourself a block log, congratulations, JW! Nothing more embarrassing than one of those "spotless" block logs. [Modestly.] They can't all be impressive like mine, of course. I hope you see the jewel in there. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Huh! I might have known you would turn up to grave dance. You don't come near my talk page for ages, and then when I'm down you have to come along to gloat. Actually, I have experienced being blocked before, at least 17 times: [4], [5], [6]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bishonen: By the way, while we're on the subject of the "jewel" in your block log, can you tell RexxS that that jewel was only the last block of an admin from that source, not the last block of anyone, as he once insisted to me was the case? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It was supposed to be the last block of anyone, see WP:BLOCKABDICATE, but was not, as the log shows. Your little brothers were blocked 17 times? Scamps! Bishonen | talk 15:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I had read that years ago, but thanks for reminding me of it. Hmm. Interesting. The arbcom decided that "In light of the foregoing, the committee need take no further action", "the foregoing" explicitly including "Jimbo Wales' permanent abdication of the use of the blocking tool". I've seen this kind of thing before: an editor avoids formal imposition of sanctions by "voluntarily" undertaking to follow restrictions. Once the threat of formal sanctions is out of the way, the editor then ignores the "voluntary" acceptance of de facto sanctions, and does the thing that he or she has undertaken not to do. Gaming the system? I'm sure people have been blocked, desysopped, and even banned for that kind of thing. What do you think? Which of us should block this disruptive editor? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Meh. He'd only wikilawyer us to bits with trivia like WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandal on my talk page

Please block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:182.1.39.28 as he's continually adding block template to my talk page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

And he's back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:182.1.62.202. Can you do a range block or protect the talk pages of me and L293D (talk · contribs)--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tyw7: Yes, before reading your second message I had already blocked 182.1.0.0/16 for three days. (In case you don't know how IP ranges work, that means all IP addresses starting 182.1.) I shall have a further look at the editing history and see whether a loner range block is needed. If it starts up again from another IP range, let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

With the temporary page protection of my talk page, he might not be attacking me but instead other user talks who doesn't have protection. Thanks for the block though. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh and ps User talk:L293D was protected too --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Still not right...

... here. Something went wrong when your edit was substed. He had messed about with comments and uncomments: [7], [8]. Now it still looks as if I blocked him, which I cannot. Can you make it right again? Cheers and TIA. - DVdm (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok now. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@DVdm: (edit conflict) I wondered why some hidden comments had apparently been unhidden by my editing, but I didn't bother to investigate, and didn't see that you had edited between my two edits nor did I notice your signature instead of mine in the block notice.

The problem was caused by this edit. In my previous edit the "subst" had not worked, because it was commented out. When you removed the commenting out, that caused the "subst" to be implemented, and since you made that edit, it did it with your signature. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all mess gone now

- DVdm (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

User is again messing up their talk page ([9]) and making bad edits resulting in non-existing urls: [10], [11], [12]. - DVdm (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you For Your Comment

In Response To Your Message

Thank You For All Dear Ms /Mr/ Madam

I would like to sincerely thank you for the Message that you have sent me last MOMENT, briefing me on your company’s background and operations, and showing me how to make every thing online in your organization. This message is nothing more than the concern of a soul and it’s the bang of my heart. Dear I ask the Almighty not to deny you the rewards of this message /work, and to judge it to be devoted to His Generous face and a treasure save for You in the Doomsday. If you have any follow-up questions, please don’t hesitate to call me at (Redacted) or by e-mail at (Redacted). I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. please hurry up and back to me

Yours sincerely, Abdela Hussen (Redacted) ABDELA HUSSEN DJILLO (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ma Long (architect)

An article that you speedy deleted per G11 a few days ago, Ma Long (architect), has been recreated. (It has also been speedy deleted at this title and at Ma Long (Architect) at least three other times). I can't tell if it is the same content as before, but it certainly looks highly promotional to me. Can you please have a look? Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Deli nk: Yes, I already know about this, and I am not happy about the article. The current article is not the same as as the previous versions, and nothing like as bad as them, but it is certainly promotional, and I was borderline for speedily deleting it. I am also pretty certain that it was created by a sockpuppet account, or possibly a meatpuppet. At the least, much of its content should be removed as promotional, and deletion is possible. I have also discovered that an image used in the article infringed copyright, so I have deleted it. Judging by the history of recreating the article, speedy deletion would probably just be followed by further re-creation. AfD is possible, but I don't know whether it would work, since Ma Long has been the architect of significant buildings. Possibly the best thing might be to cut out promotional, non-neutral, and unsourced material, which in my opinion would cut the article down to a small fraction of its current size, and see what happens then. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Deli nk: I have looked at the article again, and checked its references. I found that there was some copyright infringement, and also that some of the "references" actually had nothing to do with the content they were supposed to be references for. Neither of these was on its own a serious enough problem to justify deletion, but I said above that I was "borderline for speedily deleting it" because of its promotional nature, and the new problems I found were enough to push me over the borderline, so I have deleted the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Something's not quite right here...

Hi, JamesB. You should check this out when you get a chance. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes, it looks odd, and I wonder about possible block-evasion. However, I don't really know what to make of it. One to watch for a while, I think. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Your act was the act of Vandalism

Why you deleted very useful information including the rankings of NTU? Please, recover all of the info. for students. You have to think about users rather than your own idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 냥기리 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@냥기리: I will try to answer if you explain what you mean. What is NTU? From where did I delete information about it? Also, you may like to think carefully about whether the likelihood of getting help from someone is increased by accusing them of "vandalism". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: NTU means 'Nanyang Technological University', and you revised the webpage of NTU on 10:03, 13 July 2018‎.

Yesterday I searched for some information on the rankings of universities through Wikipedia including NTU, and then I realized many contents on NTU page were deleted.

I found out that you deleted more than the half words (37,342/60,148 bytes) of NTU page, and you said

"Anyone who is willing to put in the time can search through this to pick out useful bits worth keeping, but substantially it is use of Wikipedia as a university prospectus. There is unsourced content, promotional content, details of interest only to prospective students, and utterly pointless information such as "The University is connected to the Internet". (Really?? We need to be told that???)"

However, I am curious about the real purpose of your behavior. Because you said that the problem was that content was kinds of promotional content. Nevertheless, as you know, most of the universities' pages deal with rankings of universities. This is because the rankings of universities are one of the important facts to describe how certain universities are. Why can only NTU be an exception? There is some core information to depict something. As for universities, rankings are the core information. What about manufacturers? For example, if somebody writes 'The selling of the iPhone was the #1 in the world in 2009' on the Apple page, then is this can be promotional content for Apple?. Manufacturer's annual sales of their products are one of the significant information to explain how manufacturers are. It's a just fact, but if their achievements are high, some facts can be used the promotional content. In addition, even the same facts can be used as promotional content or objective fact depending on situations. Thus, I think that you are confused with what is the characteristic of fact or have the misconception that there is only one function of fact.

You should elaborate your behavior more unless your act doesn't want to be labeled as Vandalism.

Unfortunately, I think, your explanation is too short and not clear considering the amount of data you deleted. Sorry for not enough explanation initially.

In conclusion, if your explanation is not enough to persuade people including me, you should restore it.

P.S. I am sorry to say that, but I think I didn't ask you to help me, but it's just your responsibility.냥기리 (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@냥기리: (edit conflict) You say you didn't ask me to help you. In that case I don't understand what you are asking for, but I shall try to help anyway.

You ask about the real purpose of my behaviour. The real purpose of my behaviour was making the article comply better with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I don't advise you to imply that other editors are dishonestly claiming to do things for ulterior motives different from their stated reasons. Doing so is likely to (1) antagonise the editors whom you accuse, making it less likely that you will get cooperation from them, (2) give a negative impression to other editors, who may come to regard you as aggressive and uncooperative, so you are less likely to get support from them, and (3) if you continue to do so, lead to your being blocked from editing by an administrator. You may find it helpful to read the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith

You say that my explanation is too short. The explanation I gave in my edit summary was a good deal longer than the vast majority of edit summaries. The explanation I am giving you now is much longer than that, and a good deal longer than most answers on talk pages to questions of this kind. I hope it will help you to better understand the situation, but if you need further clarification on any specific points then please feel welcome to post civil questions about those points, and if you do so I shall do my best to answer them.

It is, unfortunately, true that many, perhaps most, articles about universities are contaminated by people working for the universities editing them to make them into promotional pages for the universities. I remove such content when I come across it, and the university you are referring to is not in any sense an "exception". As I said in the edit summary which you have quoted, the article was being used as a university prospectus, which is not compatible with Wikipedia policy. What is more, the comments you have made above give the impression that that is exactly why you want the promotional content there: so that it can serve as a university prospectus for actual or prospective students.

When I first came to editing Wikipedia, twelve years ago, I had a number of mistaken views as to the nature of Wikipedia, with the result that I sometimes found what more experienced editors did strange and questionable. Many new editors have that experience. When that happened, I used to ask other editors about what was going on. I did so rather tentatively, as I knew that I was inexperienced and they were likely to know better than I did. I always tried to be courteous and polite, even when I was commenting on things which looked to me unreasonable. Over the course of time I gradually came to understand better not only what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are, but also, and perhaps more importantly, the reasons for those policies and guidelines. Over the years since then I have found that new editors who take that kind of approach have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who don't.

Most of the content that I removed was unsourced. Several passages had been tagged with requests for sources for months. Removing content which is unsourced is fully in line with Wikipedia policy, especially when another editor has requested sources and none have been provided, despite a fairly long wait for them to be provided. Much of the content was promotional in character, and Wikipedia policy is that promotional content may be removed immediately. Some of it was parochial trivia of likely interest to potential students, but not to readers of a general encyclopaedia article. Some of it was, frankly absurd: can anyone really really really think that in 2018 the fact that a university is connected to the internet is a fact worth reporting? The substantial majority of the content was not suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, for one or more reasons. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:Thank you for your answer.

Sorry for making you feel bad. I am a newbie so I think you are just a person who likes to do the act of Vandalism or make some noises, not editor. The reason why I thought like this was your explanation was too casual and not enough with you deleting many sentences. Then, you think the ranking of universities is always the promotional content? If you think like that, I think you should delete all of the information on ranking in Wikipedia. How about starting your job from Harvard? (I just checked it. There is info. on ranking in 2018.) Most universities pages deal with their rankings. How can you say NTU is not the exception? Please, tell me your logic more clearly. I really cannot understand your opinion. 냥기리 (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

After twelve years editing Wikipedia, eight of them as an administrator, and having made over 140000 edits, it would take a good deal more than this to make me "feel bad".
Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything about rankings, and certainly not what you are claiming I said.
As I said, I remove inappropriate content when I come across it. I do not intend to embark on the huge task of searching through the whole of Wikipedia to find every article about a university, college, or school and remove a particular type of content from them all.
Please don't change talk page messages after another editor has replied to them. It gives a misleading impression as to what that editor was replying to, which can result in a misleading impression of the meaning of what he or she was saying.
I shall restore the correct indenting to the message you posted above. Please don't change the layout again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I never imagined that only 8 people can edit over 140000. I respect your achievements.
It was not my intention to change the layout. I don't know how to edit the layout and tried to mimic yours, but failed to do it. That's all.
Where can I get some information on what civil questions are and how I can I post them?
The ranking of NTU was sourced.
What are the criteria of Wikipedia regarding university prospectus? I mean how can people distinguish what is prospectus or not. Where can I find the criteria?냥기리 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Fremington,devon

I’m sorry that you thought my comment on the fremington, Devon page was vandalism but the edit I made was true but if you don’t want it on there I will stop Shannon 270503 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Shannon 270503:

The fact that something is true does not in itself justify including it in a Wikipedia article. I am wearing black socks with coloured stripes at the sides. That, I can assure you, is true, but it is not significant enough to be included in any Wikipedia article. Nor is some trivia about some school child.
You claim that what you posted was true, but I cannot believe that if there had been a mayor of Fremington named "Shannon Thomas" then I would not be able to find any record of the fact anywhere.
I find it difficult to believe anything from someone who posts a claim that a particular person is "stupid" and unable to pass GCSE, and then posts a claim that the same person "has done really well" and is "one of the highest performing students" at her school.

Consider yourself lucky that I am giving you one last chance after posting the above message, which contains a blatant lie, and is yet more vandalism after the vandalism that led to my previous warnings. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock of Irsashahid

Hello JamesBWatson, can you please take a look at user 2Memphis who was registered a few days after Irsashahid was registered and created two articles where he used images uploaded by Irsashahid and his userpage is exactly same as Irsashahid you blocked for misusing multiple accounts. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@GSS: Thanks. I found some more points of similarity too, and although there is not a lot of editing history to go on, I decided there was enough to justify blocking, so I have blocked 2Memphis and extended Irsashahid's block to indefinite. When I blocked Irsashahid's earlier sock Alex235D I said in the block log that there were probably other accounts too. I can't now remember why I thought that, but it's interesting to see my suspicion confirmed, for at least one more. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing your self

Hello, JamesBWatson, I thank you for your message on how to use sandbox you posted a couple of weeks ago. I am a new Wikipedia Fellow and therefore a novice editor. I am simply learning and testing my own skill with basic protocols and commands in the wiki interface. Still getting used to the sandbox feature, but slowly getting the hang of it. I am just now getting comfortable with how to talk to other editors on our talk pages. Thank you for your introduction. Best Aquarius2018 (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Aquarius2018Aquarius2018 (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Hey, JamesBWatson. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Kpg jhp jm 16:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

j-effman12345

Hi, JamesB. Looks like we have someone using an anonymizer for vandalism purposes. See [13], [14], [15], etc. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, But I have not used soapboxing, promotional or advertising material

@JamesBWatson: I have not used this article for promotion. The information & reference lists are true on my knowledge. The Article is on Sandbox. I think sandbox is the right place to start 1st post. Dhiren Ray 11:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Devil at Pmsltech: Errrm, what? You are telling me that language such as "these services help enterprises to stay relevant and competitive in the long run, while others help them to acquire new customers and drive sales consistently" and "PMSLTECH helps enterprises to define, design, and build customized digital products and services according to precise business needs and consumer demand" is not promotional???? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Got it. I have used this line for service information. I apologies. Can I edit it? Dhiren Ray 12:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

=Watkins Memorial High School=

AI Hello mr. Jim and thank you I just read your comments from July and I added some information on my cock page I want to take back my bully comment and thank you again for actually taking time to respond to me you are the second person that has done that so far in almost a year every time I login I find so much information on this website fascinating I really don't even want to edit it I've just been reading so much it's amazing how cool this website is after I saved my edit on my talk page I noticed the comments didn't save only your name obviously I did something wrong again but once again I just wanted to thank you for taking time to respond to me I appreciate it. Etna Township 43018 [[Licking County | 1 of 88 Counties in USA ☆ 🇺🇸 #Flags_Across_America | google.it 🇮🇹 :) Big Data Did I do it right this time? WildBullMiller (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Relay Ball

Any idea how to keep Relay Ball sport on there it keeps getting deleted thanks ZanerG10 (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@ZanerG10: If you haven't got the point by now then I'm not sure there is any more I can say that will make it any clearer to you, but I will make one more try. Wikipedia does not seek to have articles about just anything and everything; only subjects which satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines are considered suitable. You can, of course, read those guidelines for yourself if you wish to, but the main point is that a topic is not normally considered notable enough if it has not received substantial coverage in reliable published sources. Wikipedia is not for people to tell the world about the unpublished story they have written, or the band they and two of their friends have set up in their parents' garage, or the game they made up earlier this afternoon. Your game does not come anywhere remotely near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I'm afraid the answer to "how to keep Relay Ball sport" is that you can't. If you are interested in starting to contribute to the encyclopaedia in a neutral way on other subjects then please do, but Wikipedia is not the place to publicise your game. I draw your attention again to the final sentence in my message on your talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How do I create the page then with out it being deleted huh? ZanerG10 (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you really still don't get the point or you are joking, but either way I really don't have anything else I can think of that might stand any chance of helping. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Shadow knows...

Looks like 108.48.123.118 has registered as SteamLocomotive1996. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, can you protect the Carlo Colaiacovo page? Thanks-KH-1 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Done For two days. That should be enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Revdels

Are you removing edit summaries from "Shadow"? Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Well I did, yes, in the hope that not seeing the trolling edit summaries might take away some of the satisfaction, which in my experience is the only method which has any chance at all of discouraging this type of troll. In the cased of an editor who has been doing his/her infantile nonsense over such a long time I don't imagine that it will make a lot of difference, but it may help a little. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Understood, but at least those edit summaries make it a dead cert that rollback is required.

Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Yes. I also had doubts about doing it because being able to see the edit summaries might help editors to recognise the history of the problem if the same person attacks the same pages again. I decided on balance that removing them stood more chance of doing good than harm, but if you disagree please feel free to revert. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

No need to revert, AFAIK the edits were all reverted. Myself and fellow admin Redrose64 are aware of the issue. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: User:Alex Olaru block

Personally I think the user should be blocked indefinitely. I don't see him/her changing ways after the week is up. ... discospinster _talk 15:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Discospinster: I think you are probably right, but (1) I am willing to give him/her a chance to prove us wrong, and (2) if he/she does fulfill our expectations then if there is an unblock request then the case for keeping the block will be that much more certain, after he/she has been given every chance to improve and has not taken the chance. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Socking?

I see that you WP:RPP'ed Maureen Wroblewitz on 3 April 2018 (now expired). User:125.214.49.215 seems to have a keen interest in that article (which is infinitely more than I have). The post on my Talk Page is typical of all the posts (currently 32 and rising) which that IP editor has made. I only recognise two of the other victims, both experienced editors. Narky Blert (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: OK, I've looked into this, and here is what I found. The "victims" range from very experienced editors down to one who has only ever made one edit, and to me they look as though they have been selected pretty well at random. The same editor has been making disruptive Maureen-Wroblewitz-related edits for at least six weeks, using at least six IP addresses, at least one of which has already been blocked. I have placed some range blocks covering all the IP addresses I have found, lasting over time scales of weeks. All of the most recent edits from the IP ranges in question, and the vast majority of edits in recent months, have been from this editor, so the risk of collateral damage is very small. Let's hope the current blocks are enough to deter the person in question, though the block on one IP address that I mentioned above didn't deter them, so I can't be totally optimistic. Thanks for letting me know, anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I was sure that you'd be able to see (and, of course, do) more than I could. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It has been going on longer than six weeks. The sockmaster is Haiyenslna. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert and JJMC89: So this person has been around since at least as far back as September 2018, and the bombardment of user talk pages with the same messages goes back to December 2017. I am not at all surprised, as I had a feeling this probably wasn't a new editor, which is why I said "at least" six weeks. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do in a case like this apart from blocking each new account or IP address as we see it and hoping that will slow the editor down a little. Page protection is obviously not an option. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised?

IIRC, this is the third time my Talk Page has been hit with this sort of nonsense. The first time, I was mildly confused. On the second and on this (the third time), I speedily called in the heavy artillery. Narky Blert (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Troll alert!

Hi, JamesB. 174.106.202.232 is engaging in whitewashing, emphasis on the "white". –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

John from Idegon (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Validity

James, have a look at the three talk pages left in mainspace: Talk:Validity, Talk:Validity_(disambiguation), Talk:Validity_(logic). Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Barratt–Milnor sphere

Hi JBW. I noticed you PRODded Barratt–Milnor sphere. I took a look myself and only found one source using that name specifically, but did seem to find a significant number of references to the original paper at least. Would you object if I dePRODded and just merged to Hawaiian earring instead? It seems that this would at least allow keeping a brief mention of the results without worrying about using a not-well established name or if it's notable enough for an article on its own. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: By the time I saw your message another editor had removed the PROD and I had sent it to AfD. I have no objection at all to your suggested redirect, but I don't see any reason why that should preclude deleting the existing article. However, if the redirect is accepted, then that will save the time and trouble involved in a deletion discussion, so I have taken up your suggestion, by removing the article from AfD and redirecting it. (Having said that, though, judging by the editing history of the editor who removed the PROD, I think it is highly likely that the redirect will be removed and I finish up by taking it back to AfD.) Thanks for doing me the courtesy of letting me know that you were thinking of undoing my PROD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: As predicted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies; I just went ahead and commented at the AfD. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Gender and Research

Please see the article's talk page. The journal itself consistently uses the title "Gender and Research" on this page, which is, I maintain, the correct English title. --Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Randykitty: OK, thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't seen that page, and all of the pages that I had seen from the journal or its publisher used the (very cumbersome) dual title. Please go ahead and revert my move if you wish to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

I pretty much stated this in the talk page[16], I don't want to get into an edit war, I don't want to cause trouble of any kind around here and I'm not sure if anything can really be done without locking the page, but I wanted an administrator to know that the Bad Planet Reception section is being vandalized even though there's a reliable source link that proves the rating[17].108.82.13.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There were two options here, either to block the IP addresses used or protect the article. Neither of those is an ideal way of dealing with the problem, but I have decided to try short-term IP blocks in the hope it will get the message across. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War

Hello, sorry to bother you; however, the first paragraph of the article American Revolutionary War is misleading. Essentially, the first paragraph has the reader/student believe the 13 colonies were central to a 'global war' when they were not. The American war of Independence was one battlefield in a global war to reduce British military and trading dominance. The majority of the most recent academic work states this to be the case along with numerous citations. What an editor has done is taken the fact of a global war during the Seven Years War and made the American Revolutionary War central to that conflict afterwards which is blatantly false. I would like to change the first paragraph to read: The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a major battlefield in an on-going global war between European powers to diminish British global dominance following the Seven Years War that began as a conflict between Great Britain and France in 1756 and later in 1775, expanded to include the thirteen American colonies when they joined with France against the homeland to declare independence from Great Britain as the new United States of America.https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/american-revolution-was-just-one-battlefront-huge-world-war-180969444/ However, I cannot do that due to the nature of the article protection level. I have discussed this on the talk page but had no response. Roland Of Yew (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: What you say makes sense to me. I have put the level of protection back to where it was before last October, since it has been quite a while and I hope such a heavy protection is no longer needed. You are therefore free to make the change you suggest. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks James. Roland Of Yew (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

yes and I'm free to revert those changes because they are based on an unpublished book and have not been seen or vetted by scholars--or on the relevant talk page. Rjensen (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I need to request you that please delete page User talk:Yisrael Kristal as the criteria of speedy deletion CSD G10 (Attack page). The first revision of the page by 106.222.97.229 confirms an attack. Also, This revision confirms the second attack trolling that you have a fake block by Widr when you have no block. Both the revisions were abusive. That page was only created for attacks. That page was also already deleted and created again. Please see the deletion log here for confirmation. That page clearly needs to be deleted as an attack page and recreating the deleted page. So please delete User talk:Yisrael Kristal. Thank you. 171.48.50.140 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The history of the page certainly contains vandalism, but there's nothing there serious enough to warrant deletion. We don't delete user talk pages without exceptional reasons. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The page was recreated after deletion of User talk:Yisrael Kristal (certainly an attack page). So the criteria may meet CSD G4 (Please see the deletion log here). As you told that "The history of the page certainly contains vandalism", the vandalism pages can be deleted as the criteria CSD G3. But both the times, it was mainly created for attacks or troll purposes only. So the criteria fits to CSD G10. As the page is created only for attacking, please quickly delete page User talk:Yisrael Kristal as the criteria CSD G10 (attack page). You may also delete the page reasoning multiple criteria reasons as G10, G4 and G3. Thank you. 171.48.50.140 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The page contains ordinary trivial vandalism, such as happens hundreds of times every day. It's of no importance, and I doubt that anyone in the world cares about it except for you. The last edit to the page was months ago. Please just drop it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked again

This is in all likelihood the person whose antics caused the Yisrael Kristal article, its talk page, and of course the above-mentioned user talk page to be protected. I've blocked the IP. More are likely to follow. Favonian (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of page under G5

Hi, Be Aib (G5: Block user violation) was deleted by you recently. Let us get this straight, this page was illegaly moved by blocked user from Be Aib (Drama) to Be Aib and the user who created was never blocked for violation, the programme tv show is very much real and there are very well established references that are available on internet for the article use. This is old famous show and the wikipedia article was crucial for information on it and deleting it is like deleting it from history. A request to kindly undelete it and in turn I will provide the page with solid 5 references? 39.44.22.84 (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

There are several thoughts that are brought to mind by your message, but here are just three of them.

The article as created was a copyright infringement, which makes restoring it out of the question, even if there were no other considerations.
How do you know that the account that created the article has never been blocked?
I could easily block the account, but there's no point, as it hasn't edited for a long time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Guidance

Just want your guidance on getting some of my edits reverted now that I'm reinstated. Is self-reverting the best option here? Don’t want to cause any issues. Happy to loop in Ian.Thomson, if necessary. BoonDeal (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@BoonDeal: OK, here is my view of this. Ian.Thomson has not responded to your ping here, despite the fact that he has presumably seen it, as he has made several edits since you posted it. He also chose not to respond to my invitation to comment on your talk page about your unblock request, and he chose not to comment following your unblock, despite being notified by the unblocking administrator. I think you can therefore assume that he has no opinion to express on the matter, and it's entirely up to you whether you revert his reverts. (As always, if you do so and he or anyone else objects then you should be prepared to discuss the reasons for your edits.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Seen

JamesB"Will unblock for coffee"Watson :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yes. I thought of making a comment about the coffee myself, but then didn't bother. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Please use ping

@JamesBWatson: Hi, it's a bit inconvenient having a message and don't know that. so, please use {{ping|username}}. Luístro ☎️ 20:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Luístro: I don't remember ever posting a message for you anywhere than on your talk page, where a ping is unnecessary, as you get notified anyway. However, if you would like to tell me what message I posted for you without pinging you anywhere else, please do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

CSD G4 question

Hello, may I ask about an article that was deleted under CSD G4? The delete log for "Constitutional republic" shows that the article was deleted in Sept. 2012 per discussion on AFD, and deleted two more times (July 2017 and July 2018) per CSD G4. From the 2012 AFD discussion, I see that what was deleted back then was an article with content, while a later incarnation (2017 and/or 2018) appears to have been a redirect to Republic (as evidenced by a talk page discussion). The G4 policy states that it "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". My question is, considering that the AFD discussion was about an article with content, can the G4 deletion of the redirect be reversed (and/or can the redirect get recreated) without being subject to further CSD G4 deletion, and if so, how to do that? Thanks for your attention to my inquiry. -- HLachman (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@HLachman: The answer to your question is that there is nothing to stop anyone from creating a redirect in place of a deleted article, and it is not subject to G4. Such redirects are often created, usually without any problem, but in a significant minority of cases, such as this one, creating such a redirect is followed by problems.

I've had a look through the deleted history of the article, and it turns out to be rather complicated. After the deletion as a result of the AfD, the page was re-created as a redirect to Parliamentary republic. It then went through numerous changes, including being redirected to other pages, recreated as an article, turned back into an article, deleted again, recreated as a redirect, turned back into an article, and so on. The redirect that is referred to in the talk page discussion you linked to was one of those many redirects, and after that it was turned back into an article yet again. Eventually Hut 8.5 deleted the article under CSD G4, and the redirect referred to there was lost in the deleted editing history. Shortly afterwards the page was again re-created as a redirect, and after some time it was again turned back into an article.

In cases such as this quite often valid redirects in the editing history get deleted as collateral damage when re-created copies of the article get deleted. I suppose technically the deleting administrator should search through the editing history to see if there is a valid redirect to restore, but for one thing in a case such as this one, with 573 edits in the deleted history, it is not necessarily realistic to expect anyone to search through them all, and for another thing experience shows that an article which has been deleted is far less likely to be recreated than one which has been redirected.

I have restored the original redirect created after the AfD, which as I said above was a redirect to Parliamentary republic. I have restored that one partly because I suppose technically that is the original one, which should have been left in place, but mainly because it seems a better redirect than any of the others, as its topic is closer to "Constitutional republic" than the others, apart perhaps from a redirect that once existed to a section of the article Republic, but that section no longer exists. In view of the history of redirects under this title being turned back into re-creations of the deleted article numerous times over the course of many years I am wondering whether the page should be protected, but I am not planning to do so at the moment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed information. You're right, it's pretty complicated. Now that the redirect exists, I think it should go to Republic (to the lede, not to a section) rather than to Parliamentary republic. One reason is, the term "constitutional republic" is explained, to some degree, in the lede of the Republic article, and not anywhere else that I know of. The other reason is, there are a lot of countries (according to their Wikipedia pages, in the infobox area) that are identified as being constitutional republics, with some of them being parliamentary, and some not (for example, Italy and Moldova say "unitary parliamentary constitutional republic", while Brazil, Mexico, and, until recently, United States say/said "federal presidential constitutional republic"). So I think the redirect for "constitutional republic" should not be made to appear to favor "parliamentary" over "presidential".

I'm not sure how the naming convention for government type (as used in the infobox area of country articles) arose, but it seems fairly consistent across Wikipedia, and I'd rather not break it unless there's a reason to. For the United States article, I'm advocating on the Talk page that the infobox be put back to the prior terminology ("federal presidential constitutional republic"), which was stable for most of the past decade, then got edited down during this year (while some other countries still retain that exact wording in their infoboxes). Digging deeper, what I think happened was that many of those country articles linked "constitutional republic" to the article (or redirect) of that name, and then the latter got deleted, resulting in a redlink. Different articles coped with the redlink in different ways. Some just linked "constitutional republic" to Republic, while some linked the two words independently (linking "constitutional" to Constitution, or to Constitutionalism, etc.). While none of these outcomes are "wrong", it would seem better for such terminology to be treated in a consistent way across articles, and I'm guessing that it may have been stable in the past. I'm not sure of any "right answer", but it seems that, this being an encyclopedia, perhaps there should at least be a way to look up the term "constitutional republic" if it has some meaning and if it gets used here and there (like in the infoboxes). That being said, I wouldn't advocate redirecting "constitutional republic" to Constitutionalism because the latter is probably applicable also to constitutional monarchies. (By the way, I see that "constitutional republic" is still an article on simple.wikipedia.org... but I guess this isn't the place to discuss that.)

So, unless there's a better idea, what I'll do is redirect "constitutional republic" to Republic. Then (maybe), in the Republic article, bold the term "constitutional republic" where it appears in the lede (per MOS:BOLD). I would also consider putting an HTML-style comment into the redirect to inform editors about the prior AfD activity and refer them to the Talk page. Any opinion? -- HLachman (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@HLachman: I really don't have any strong feelings about what redirect, if any, should be used. I suggest you do what you think best. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Warning on conflict of interest

Dear JamesBWatson, thanks a lot for your detailed message. We totally respect Wikipedia Terms of Use, thus my profile includes the details of my relationship with Sustainable Energy for All as a paid editor. Since the organization went through some major changes in recent years, we would like to make sure that the info on our Wiki page is accurate -and while doing that, of course, we try our best to have a neutral/evidence-based tone. Any further advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated. "Gizemdumlu" (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Name policy

Hello and thank you for the information. The linked page say that new user should create a new accout, so i ask if i should do so or i should change the name? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiworkbot2.0 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wikiworkbot2.0: You can either request a change of user name or create a new account. I think it's better to have your user name changed, because that way the history of your edits under the old name is kept along with the edits from your new account, but it's not a difference of great importance, and it's up to you. If you do create a new account then you should put a note on your user page saying that the other account is yours too, to avoid the risk of anyone thinking you have created two accounts dishonestly, with the intention of giving the misleading impression of being two different people. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing Correction

I am ready to correct it. Being a newbie,I am not having idea how to give copyrights practically.Please help. Do not give links.I have neutral point always. I want to know how can we do it practically. If u think I am wrong ,kindly guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saee Patil (talk • contribs) 11:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Saee Patil: I will be happy to try to help you if you make it clear what help you want. As far as copyright is concerned, it is simple: post only content you have written yourself, not content you have copied from anywhere else. I am not sure what you mean by saying that you "have neutral point always", but if you mean that you write from a neutral point of view then I suggest you consider the following quotes from your editing, all of which unambiguously express opinions: "the Challenger fits the bill", "excellent", "we couldn’t find much to pick fault with", "feels more modern", "we would take the Avanté over and above its Compass Casita 860 cousin". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

How can I go back to the article which I need to change,Like you have mentioned, not to include words excellent n all.. I want to correct it.How do I edit it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saee Patil (talk • contribs) 12:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Since the page in question was a copyright infringement it has been deleted, and you can't go back to it. Copyright infringing content may not be restored.

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 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) 12:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay.But,That Copyright infringement I was ready to edit,in fact was about to edit as well.I have a slow Net connection. Also, Its lagging here.But, then how will I know how to edit the links or resources or external links! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saee Patil (talk • contribs) 12:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Block request

Morning (perhaps?), JBW. Could you review the requests at User talk:Mrwoogi010/Archive 1#HELP: Merging Accounts and User:Caninecrew#Help Please and the discussion at User talk:Mrwoogi010#September 2018 and if you agree, soft-block Caninecrew? Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 14:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:Mrwoogi010. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@General Ization: The editor has now marked the Caninecrew account as inactive, and noted the connection between the accounts on both user pages. I don't see any need to block at present. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 15:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

Hello. I am here to request that you hide [[18]] because I recognize the content as lyrics of the opening song of Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air. Also, what should I do in the future if I spot a copyright violation that should be hidden? CLCStudent (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: I can't find the lyrics anywhere to confirm the copyright infringement. Can you point me to a source that shows they are the lyrics of that song? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

[[19]] starting with "When a couple of guys who were up to no good". CLCStudent (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: I actually doubt that such a tiny quotation counts as a copyright infringement, but I have got rid of it anyway. Certainly it was vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Correction for Deleted page Ubong King

Greetings James, Thanks for the efforts to keep Wikipedia Safe, I created the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubong_King and although used some contents gotten from a Website but I have the Copyright permission to use it and the owner of the website is ready to provide any necessary copyright permission to use the contents from his website. I seek to request for a re-uploading of the page also if there is a need for me to edit the content in my own words I can still edit it to avoid a repeat of this. Thanks and hoping to read from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delords (talk • contribs) 18:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have answered at User talk:Delords, in this edit. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The owner of the Copyright has his contact details on his website and i reached out to him and letting him know about it and he agrees to give the permission and knows what it entails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delords (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment on InsideSales.com Draft

Hi James, You left a comment on my page, with no reference. you said not to "add promotional material" to Wikipedia. I don't understand where this has come from. I have not added any "promotional material" to Wikipedia. I have been trying to create a page about a company, but it's not promotional, it's informational. Can you please expand on your comment? Thanks, Ryanbreneman (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ryanbreneman: Are you seriously suggesting that text such as "InsideSales also provides strategic consulting to optimize the people, processes and opportunities of customer sales organizations, and builds and deploys custom AI models that leverage data from any customer data source" is anything other than pure marketing-speak? Have you ever heard language like that other than from a marketing professional? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The Fonz

Perhaps 3 strikes and yo're out should apply here? This is clearly a HS kid who thinks he knows it all and I cannot see that another chance to sling his bullshit is going to benefit either him or the project. John from Idegon (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Assuming you mean removing talk page access, I did think of that, but I wasn't sure. Where I am it's getting too close to bedtime for me to feel up to making a decision, so I'm leaving it for now. However, you are very probably right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sleep well. It'll keep. Thanks for all you do. I've thought about going for the mop in the past but always manage to talk myself out of it, probably for good reason. John from Idegon (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Block-evading IP hopper

Hi, JamesB. I was just perusing Recent Changes and noticed 39.38.44.81 started making similar edits as 39.38.1.98, which has been blocked for a month. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Also 39.38.16.12, 39.38.30.112, 39.38.34.158, etc. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Range-blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Found another one: 184.185.133.191 got blocked and 184.185.133.197 took over. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Those two IP addresses are in a range that has made over 100 edits since 2012, and on the basis of a sample of edits I reckon something like 99% of those edits have been vandalism, so I have blocked the range for a fairly long time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Found some more. Blocks have expired but worth keeping an eye on: [20]. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

More here. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Angelo Dawkins's wiki page should not have been deleted

Hello, the page that I created on Dawlins was deleted, as so Montez Ford, both who wrestle at NXT. Both are a popular tag team, known as the Street Profits. I don't understand why both of pages being deleted. They both popular wrestlers who appearing on television on weekly basis, they both are feautured on the new WWE's video game WWE 2K19, and the fact that all of those things were ignored by other admins and they still deleted those pages, it's very frustrating. I voiced my frustration to one of the admin but it's look like my voice have no place in here. I would really like for you to reconsider your decision. Waiting for any response. SeosiWrestling (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@SeosiWrestling: As you already know, the article Angelo Dawkins was the subject of a discussion in which there was a consensus that it should be deleted. I took no part in that discussion, and I have no personal view whatever on that decision. My involvement is purely as an administrator enforcing the decision made there. I have no involvement with Montez Ford at all, but similar reasons appear to apply.

You say "all of those things were ignored by other admins and they still deleted those pages", but that is a misunderstanding of how deletion discussions work. The administrator who closes a discussion merely assesses consensus of those who took part in the discussion: he or she does not take a personal view of whether the page should be deleted. I was not the closing administrator for either of the discussions, but in both cases there was a perfectly clear and unambiguous consensus, and no administrator could possibly have closed either discussion as anything other than "delete".

Being popular, appearing on television, and featuring in a video game are not part of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Maybe they should be, and you are perfectly free to try to get the guidelines changed, but the deletion discussions took place in the context of the notability guidelines as they are now, so those are not considerations. The discussions hinged on issues of sourcing, which are a major consideration in the notability guidelines. I have not checked the sources myself and therefore have no opinion on them. (I had no need to, since as I have already said, my task as an administrator does not depend on my making a personal assessment of the merits or demerits of the article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Understood, thanks you for explaining it for me, have a good day. SeosiWrestling (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Ramez A. Baassiri

Hi James, a page you had deleted a few days back got recreated - Ramez A. Baassiri...and that too from an account which suddenly went active after December 2017. Thought of bringing this to your notice. Have a great day! Csgir (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Not block-evading, yet...

...but definitely hopping IPs. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and on five other articles too, some of them for a fairly long time. I have semi-protected all the articles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

VOX Cinemas

VOX Cinemas was deleted without an AFD. I would like to request that the history of the article be restored. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Why? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply - Restoring the history or deleting the individual inappropriate edits is the default setting, as this was deleted without an AFD. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I don't understand. What do you mean by "the default setting"? It vaguely looks as though you are saying that a page which satisfies one of the speedy deletion criteria should not normally be deleted unless it has been subject to a deletion discussion, but that makes no sense, as the whole point of the speedy deletion policy is that a page which satisfies one of the criteria can be deleted without going through a discussion, so presumably you can't mean that. Can you clarify? Also, I see that you have already raised this at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, where an administrator said "there isn't a value to Wikipedia to restore promotional material". I also note that you said there "page can be redirected with history in tact [sic]", which I assume means that your intention is not to actually restore the article, but just to keep its history behind a redirect to another article. What advantage would that confer? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of VOX Cinemas. 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice to recreate Deleted page Ubong King

Greetings James, Thanks once more for your work here, I would have responded to your previous notice but I was recently bereaved of a dear one and was off here for a while. I am recreating the page Ubong King and said I let you know about it and also find out if there is a way you can review it before i make it live as I am sure it won't violate the said rules, although I had to correct all you suggested in the previous page but not sure why it still got deleted. Please do let me know about my request while we hope for the best of all. Thanks. —&nbsp.;Preceding unsigned comment added by Delords (talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked IP hopper

Hi, JamesB. The editor known as "Ron liebman" appears to be hopping all over IPs assigned to Adelphi University. [21] –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Escola de Comando e Estado-Maior do Exército

Hello! Could you also delete and restore the page Escola de Comando e Estado-Maior do Exército as you did with Escola Preparatória de Cadetes do Exército? Thank you very much! Luiz265 (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Luiz265: It looks to me as though this has now been done by another administrator, but if there is anything more that needs to be done please tell me exactly what it is, and I'll look into it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson, thank you for your attention. RHaworth has already restored the page. Regards, Luiz265 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

User blocked

Hi I recently ran a wikipedia workshop for language educators at a major European conference and one of my participants, herself an Iranian teaching in Japan was eager to get involved. I now see that you have blocked her (Parisa Mehran) can you tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresamac63 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Teresamac63: After a bit of searching I discovered that you must mean Parisamehran. (It makes it much easier if care is taken to ensure that the name is exactly right.) That editor's editing was pretty well 100% promotion of one organisation. She even openly used the expression "public relations" in connection with what she was doing, but even if she hadn't done so, the nature of her editing spoke for itself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks James, I spoke with parisamehran and she realises that what she did was not appropriate. As it was a very early attempt to get started with editing I think it should be possible for her to start again. I feel this is an extreme reaction to a mistake made by a newbie who should be supported in order to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresamac63 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Teresamac63: That's great. Since she realises what the problems were she will be able to post an unblock request in which she makes it clear that she does, and she can be unblocked. However, in the course of checking the relevant editing history after reading this message from you I found that you have a clear involvement in what you have been writing about, such that you should read the guide on conflict of interest, and also that some of your writing has been promotional. You need to consider that very carefully. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern @JamesBWatson. I can confirm that there is no conflict of interest in my editing, I am not paid to edit. I am an academic who researches in an emerging area of language teaching practice and I have been contributing to sharing knowledge about the existence of this field. Teresamac63 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

User:MikeyScott01/sandbox/Deji Olatunji

Hi JamesBWatson. You previously deleted and salted Deji Olatunji per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oladeji Olatunji, but there is an editor currently working on User:MikeyScott01/sandbox/Deji Olatunji which might be the same content. The account is also quite new, so it might be another sock trying to recreate the same article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The content of the draft is not the same as that of the deleted article, but there are a couple of other similarities between the accounts which make it look fairly likely that they are the same person. I have asked the new account if there is a connection, and I shall keep an eye on it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @MarchJuly: @JamesBWatson:. I am not the same user as the one who created the other article. I am just a new user to Wikipedia and am working on the Deji Olatunji page as part of a university assignment. I am unaware as to why the previous article was deleted but I have no connection to the previous article or the mentioned account. MikeyScott01 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi MikeyScott01. Are you working on this draft as part a outreach:Wiki Education program, or is this simply something you decided to do on your own? In the latter case, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Student assignments#Advice for students for general reference because Wikipedia might not be very well suited for what you're trying to do, especially if it's something you're hoping to be graded upon your work.

The explanation as to why the previous article about Olatunji can be found in this discussion. If you hope to create a new article about him, you're going to have to address the concerns raised by others in that discusison; otherwise, whatever you create will end up deleted as well for the same reasons. However, as I pointed out on your user talk page, the title "Deji Olatunji" has been locked to prevent any further disruptive recreations of the article; this means you're going to need an administrator to unlock the page first. The best way to probably go about doing this would be to move the page from User:MikeyScott01/sandbox/Deji Olatunji to Draft:Deji Olatunji, and then ask an administrator (ideally JamesBWatson) to review it when you think it's ready to be upgraded to article status. Now, it appears that "Draft:Deji Olatunji" has also been deleted a few times before, but the page doesn't seem to be locked. JameseBWatson can probably provide more details on what you need to do if you want to continue to work on this as a draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @MarchJuly:. I am taking on this article as an assignment with the purpose of creating a wikipedia article and this is being monitored by my university by means of draft submissions and more. Thank you for the suggestion. I will refer to the talk page and ensure I comply with what is being expected of me by the members in the chat page and the wikipedia community. I have reached out to those in charge of my course and await permission to take my article to a draft. MikeyScott01 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional clarification. You do realize, however, that the people in charge of your course really have no say when it comes to anything Wikipedia related and that any OK you receive from them is not going to mean that anything you're working on will someday be accepted as an article. JamesBWatson probably is in a better position than the people at your university or myself to clarify exactly what you need to do in order to achieve your goal of someday having your draft accepted as an article. So, you probably should be asking him what your options are. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I see no reason to think that MikeyScott01 is anything other than a good faith editor doing exactly what he says he is doing. The draft article is actually quite a lot different from the deleted versions, and the behavioural similarities I mentioned above are superficial. I have decided that sockpuppetry is unlikely. Also, the reason for my deletion of a previous version of the article does not apply here, as it is substantially different from those which were subjected to deletion discussions, with much better evidence of notability. Nor do the reasons for other deletions apply to this one, in my opinion.

@MikeyScott01: The main problem with previous attempts to create articles about Deji Olatunji was lack of evidence that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The draft you have created gives much more evidence of notability than most of the previous versions. (The article in the Guardian, for example, seems to me to be helpful, though on the other hand references to wikia are worthless for establishing notability.) My personal view is that there are improvements that could be made (as there are with most articles) but there are no faults so great as to prevent posting your draft as an article. However, at least ten previous attempts to create an article about him, under several different titles, have been deleted, and I cannot guarantee that other editors won't disagree with my assessment of this one. nevertheless, I would suggest you go ahead with it.

On a different matter, you say that you "have reached out to those in charge of [your] course". Unfortunately, teachers who encourage their students to submit work on Wikipedia as part of their course vary enormously in how competent they are to do so. Some of them are themselves experienced Wikipedia editors, who also take support from the Wiki Education Foundation, and are therefore well able to guide their students. However, some have almost no knowledge of how Wikipedia works, and have just decided that editing Wikipedia is an easy task to set their students, requiring little work on their part, without actually knowing what is involved. Those can, unfortunately, be very unhelpful to their students, unwittingly leading them to edit in ways which are way out of line with Wikipedia's requirements, causing the students to get into difficulties, even at times to being blocked from editing. I have no way of knowing where on the spectrum between those two situations your teachers lie: they may know exactly what they are doing, or they may not, so you would be well advised to be cautious about assuming that everything they say is good advice. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. James for clarifying things. I was just try to stress to MikeyScott01 that an article would not be as easy to create as it might've once been because the name has been WP:SALTed; it wasn't really a comment on the quality of the draft. Since you were the salting admin, I have no problem with the draft if you have no problem with the draft. My only suggestion would be to move it to the draft namespace and submit it for review via WP:AfC since this would probably the best way to ensure it's not quickly and mistakenly tagged by another editor for speedy deletion per WP:G4. Maybe there’s also a way to add a link to this discussion to the draft's talk page for reference. I don't know whether doing it this way fits in with the plans of MikeyScott01 and those at his university, but I think it's the best way to move forward from a Wikipedia standpoint. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank you for the help. I will still be looking for more reliable sources to establish notability and to improve the quality of my article. Would you advise I change my article to a draft or is it possible that finishing my article in sandbox and then submitting it is a fair option? MikeyScott01 (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

q

Is this, 92.222.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), still a webhost? It was used by someone who also used ranges blocked by Berean Hunter and zzuuzz as such. If so, can you act accordingly? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I can't see enough evidence relating to the whole /16 range; I can only say for certain that the subrange 92.222.64.0/19 is a webhost. The range 92.222.64.0/19 has had a grand total of three edits in the history of Wikipedia, but since those three edits have all been in the last two and a bit months, it could possibly be the beginning of more editing. Also, two of the three edits were unambiguous vandalism, and the other one was almost certainly vandalism (in my opinion) and certainly unconstructive, so I am inclined to block. Block for how long? All edits fairly recent suggests a short block, but a webhost could justify longer. I am inclined to compromise on roughly twice the time over which the disruptive edits have taken place. What are the ranges you say have been blocked by Berean Hunter & zzuuzz? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, do you mind running CU again--and you'll see what I was looking at--and weigh in? Thanks, and thanks editor who uses the pseudonym JamesBWatson, Drmies (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, James' block on the /19 covers the problematic editing for six months. The /19 could be converted to a hardblock; if the /16 were hardblocked, it would catch one semi-active editor as collateral damage. They make 10-20 sports statistics edits per month. I see that you understood the whole /16 to be a webhost from the block log where it was hardblocked as one for the last four years.

Others outside of the /19 range have been problematic before. This one is permablocked. Another one was proxy blocked. OVH ranges are tricky as some have been corporate VPN while others are proxies for customers on other static OVH IPs. SQL had maintained some lists but I'm not sure if any of the OVH info is listed somewhere. Below the /19, it appears as corporate VPN and above the /19 appears as general.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies and Berean Hunter:IMO Yes, it absolutely is a webhosting range. The description of that netblock is "VPS Static IP". Resolving the first /24 in the /16: here strongly indicates that it is, in fact a webhosting range, and not DSL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQL (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies, Berean Hunter, and SQL: The /19 block that I placed was intended to be a hard block, as Berean suggests, and I have amended it now. 99% of the blocks that I place use the default settings, so I find it very easy to forget to change them on the 1% of occasions when I want something else. As for the /16 range, how much of a problem would it be for the "one semi-active editor" to be caught in collateral damage? Could we just say "Well, you will simply have to stop using your web host when you edit Wikipedia"? I tend to regard that as the default situation, in the absence of special reasons for making an exception. I see that the range has twice been blocked for two years, each time being re-blocked shortly after the two years has been up. In that situation my inclination is to block the range for much longer than two years, especially in view of what SQL has told us. (VPS is yet one more new entry for the acronym store in my brain, but now that I have looked it up it is clear that SQL is right to say that this is a webhosting range.) However, since two editors have commented here who have with access to CU data and I don't, I would prefer to have further opinions from one or both of them, rather than jumping in and placing a long block on my own.
I realise now that it was thoughtless of me to ask "What are the ranges you say have been blocked by Berean Hunter & zzuuzz?" Obviously that information can't be made public. However, if either of you who are check users think there is any information which might go some step towards clarifying the matter and which could be emailed to me it might be helpful.
@PhilKnight: Was your indefinite block on 92.222.109.43 a mistake? There has only ever been one anonymous edit from that IP address, and I don't see that it can relate to checkuser evidence regarding logged-in editing, as the block is anon-only. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (pseudonym), I am always asking these kinds of questions because I'm a rookie in this area, and that is why I asked the CUs as well. I appreciate you being so explicit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, yes thanks it was a mistake. I've unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The /16 range never had a legitimate unblock request in four years and never had talkpage access revoked. That may be telling that it was never under demand. No objection here.

I don't have the cu data in front of me as I closed it but I did see one blocked account and reckoned this as a LTA that particularly used to post to Drmies' talk page but I'm not certain. I'm not sure about which ranges that I've blocked because it may have been some time ago.

Without checking, the August 14 entry is the one in the blocked /19 based on behavior and what I saw that the account posted. I had looked at some unblock requests in this range quite a while ago (CU log) which also tied to this. The user made on-wiki connections between their account and some of their IPs. I'm not sure if this is the block that Drmies has me as making. If not, I would need some help finding the ranges that I have blocked that he is referring to. Actually, I think Drmies could discuss the ranges as long as no account gets mentioned.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The answer to the original question seems to be "yes, this is still a webhost". Nobody has given any reason why it shouldn't be blocked again for a long period. Nobody has indicated disagreement with the suggestion that the "one semi-active editor as collateral damage" can be asked to edit without using the webhost. Since Berean Hunter's last post, Drmies has made several dozen edits but not responded to the ping, so presumably she or he has nothing more to say on the matter. In view of those facts, I have gone ahead and hard-blocked the range. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi James

You’re not a bureaucrat, are you? If you’re not, I think you should definitely consider it! Foxnpichu (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Foxnpichu: Do you have any particular reason for saying so? If you have I will consider it, but in the absence of specific reasons I don't have any interest in being able to do the things that bureaucrats can do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I just think that you have enough experience and more than enough responsibility. If you don’t think you need to be one, that’s fine. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Foxnpichu: If it's of any interest to you, the only other Wikipedia position that I think I might be interested in is CheckUser. Maybe one day I will put myself forward for that, maybe not... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Block-evading IP hopper

Hi, JamesB. Just a heads-up regarding a hopper using British Telecom IPs, primarily here. –Skywatcher68 (talk)

@Skywatcher68: Yes. Several ranges are already blocked, and I have now blocked some more. If you see the same disruptive editor coming back on a range which isn't yet blocked, please let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

this man is a legend

This legend got me unbanned DespacitoSpider1 (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Bridgette Andersen.jpg

You recently deleted File:Bridgette Andersen.jpg and I was wondering if you would explain how this image was subject to being deleted under WP:F7? If the image was tagged with a speedy deletion template, there was no notification either on Bridgette Andersen, its talk page or the uploader's talk page of this template. Aspects (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There were several reasons why the image did not satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content policy, at least some of which have been pointed out on the talk page of the article. Speedy deletion criterion F7 describes four situations, for two of which it states that the image "may be deleted immediately". (Emphasis in the text of the speedy deletion policy.) Both of those applied in this case:

Non-free images or media from a commercial source .. where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary ... may be deleted immediately; in this case the content of the article was purely about the person depicted in the file, not about the file itself.
Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag may be deleted immediately; in this case the image had a tag saying that it was to be used "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents", but it wasn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Escape Into Night

I thought I should let an administrator know that user Spadroon[22] has at least 2 times (and including a sock puppet 107.77.229.4 and 2605:e000:2e54:8f0:e5a1:eaa:62f:5a7c) put info on the Escape Into Night page but with no source to back it up.[23] The only link I saw on that page was this [24], but it doesn't prove that statement.108.82.13.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll get onto this when I have time, which will probably be tomorrow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have posted a warning message to the account's talk page. (You could have done that.) If the same editing continues, I can consider further action. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Third Voice

My apologies for the 'purely disruptive' edit to 'Third Voice'. I confess absolutely to making mistakes between Activeweave, Stickis and Third Voice. Purely disruptive ... no. There was a bit of content on activeweave that looked quite interesting and worth retaining .... I was minded to copy it to Stickis ... but realised that did not work and eventually realised it belonged at Third Voice. Third Voice has been recently vandalised and I was possibly not aware it perhaps may have already had the content I bringing in. This all happened between a deprod on Activeweave and it being taken to AfD. Having merged it in to safely avoid any copyvio issues I then decided to work over Third Voice ... then when focusing on how to develop 3rd Voice simply improved it from scratch. While it now looks a nice little article in its earlier form it has a risk of being pulled to AfD if the mass of AfD's/prod/rescues onoging at that time. To I was a little quiet about it at the Activeweave AfD not to bring attention to it. I was aware of the issue (It' why I couldn't saydelete activeweave) but certainly interested to see how it would play out. I realised the possibility of delete histmerge delete due to someone mentioning a similar at ANI a day or two before. As a spin off I think I developed Third Voice to quite a nice little article ... but I'd agree how I got there was a complete shambles. And I am not that good after the number of inappropriate AfD raised recently and with sources being pressed to the limnit. Anyway Thankyou for sorting it (but it was not 'purely' disruptive as per your comment in the deletion log). Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to trouble you.

I observe there is a Template:Copied left on Talk:Third Voice which seems inconsistent and which you may choose to remove.
I would still suggest a histmerge from Activeweave (From a technical point of view I might take to DRV if not done to ensure they endorse not doing it in this cirumstance).
I remain concerned about the allegation of purely disruptive edits to Third Voice and suggest there are explanations that mean purely disruptive is inappropriate. I have left a comment on the article talk page regards that I dispute that allegation.

There was content on Activeweave that was relevant but missing from Third Voice. I think I had identified that on the Talk of Activeweave some days earlier. Activeweave has I believe been PRODd on the 12 September. Copying content needed to be done before the end of the PROD window so 17 September was towards the end of that.
The decision to explain (temporary) content removal is given at Talk:Third Voice#POV. I was also concerned that as content from Activeweave was present on Third Voice would have led to a PROD or AfD or Third Voice to which that article was vulnerable at that point. But I was concerned that the content I had merged in was not presenting well. And I had to stop editing shortly ... I had other things to do.
At 21:18 for the next two hours I worked over the Third World article over a series of staggered edits. Some might say I did a complete re-write. At at least one point I copied elements from the revision at 09:01/09:21 though I am reasonably confident this was only references in the end. It seems likely I introduced new references as well. I do at this point seem to have noticed the key content I wanted from Activeweave, albeit reworked to remove Activeweave from it, was already available in an existing reference in the Third Voice article but the reference had not been utilised for the purposes I wished to highlight. The end result was a reasonable article (albeit short) for Third Voice with demonstration of notability and sufficient references to back that. I again improved the article on September 24.

Thankyou.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: There's quite a lot to look at there, and unfortunately pressing real-life matters prevent me from having the time to look at it now, but I will look at it thoroughly as soon as I have time, which should be within the next 24 hours. Apologies for the delay. One thing I can say right away, though, is that a history merge is out of the question: history merge merges the entire editing histories of pages, not just particular content, and is suitable only for two versions of the same article (almost always because of a cut and paste move) not for two different articles. History merging two different articles would result in a page with an editing history which jumped back and forth between the two original articles, making it look as though there had been extensive edit-warring between editors repeatedly reverting from one version to the other, making it impossible to see who had in fact done what editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson Appreciate the reply and it is important real life matters take priority; and this is of relatively minor matters in many ways. I appreciate your viewpoint on the histmerge as it help me understand that position better. That may simply be too hard. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: I have looked back at this, and I see that the content you copied was much more relevant than I thought at first, and I accept that "purely disruptive" was a bad choice of words, as it was likely to be read as a an undeserved criticism of your actions. I could restore the deleted article and redirect it to Third Voice, but I would prefer to avoid doing that if possible, because experience over the years indicates that far too often an article which has been redirected after consensus to delete at a deletion discussion is followed by restoration of the content of the old article, meaning that one editor is able to unilaterally overturn consensus. I have quite often seen this happen a fairly long time after the discussion, in which case it is quite likely to pass unnoticed for quite a while. Also, and perhaps more importantly, I think the new version you have written in Third Voice does a better job of describing the criticisms than the content copied from Activeweave, and since the current version does not use any of the same wording as the content from Activeweave, there is no copyright attribution problem. It therefore seems to me best to leave things as they are, apart from removing the notice about copied content from the talk page. As far as I can see that leaves no outstanding problems with Third Voice, and it allows the consensus about Activeweave to be honoured. From your editing history I get the clear impression that you are not keen on deletions, so you might prefer to see Activeweave kept, but I hope you can accept consensus even when you disagree with it (as we all have to at times) and while going against the consensus at the discussion would be justified if there were still a copyright attribution problem at Third Voice, in fact there isn't one.

Please do post here again if you disagree with my conclusion, or of course if you have anything else to say about this issue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking the time to consider this and I am pleased to concur with your consideration. Yes .. I think I could be said to be on the inclusionist end of the spectrum. If someone had come up with good reasons for a merged Activeweave-Stickis to be retained I might have given support but there was reasoned proffered and I had not found any myself. I can currently not think redirect from Activeweave to Third Voice could avoid WP:SURPRISE without WP:UNDUE additions so I am pleased to go with no redirect. Your insight on the copyright attribution problem is useful. I am also pleased to affirm I am not taking to DRV and am pleased to shake your hand for your time and effort reviewing this. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Kobby Kyei

I have moved to AfD, thanks! sandiooses^TextMe 23:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Deji Olatunji

Hi JamesBWatson, I felt the need to inform you that my article on Wikipedia was taken to the draft space and I believe it has been reviewed. I understand there was worry that the page was not in good faith so I have decided to reach out to you so that you can see that I have created the page as best I can with Wikipedias standards and guidelines. The page can be accessed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Deji_Olatunji - MikeyScott01 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please my translation

Can you send me the article a submitted please. Thanx Paralega (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Paralega:

Done I have emailed it to you via Wikipedia's email service, rather than directly to your email address. It is not a good idea to post your email address publicly on Wikipedia. If the email doesn't arrive please let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Found what appears to be an editor only interested in promotional content

Hi, JamesB. What do you think about indefinitely blocking Taysavestheday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywatcher68 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Certainly much of the editor's intention seems to be promotion. However, apart from a couple of very brief edit summaries, nobody had made any attempt to explain to him or her what the problems were, and it is not usually a good idea to indefinitely block an inexperienced editor who has never been told what the problems are so that he or she has a chance to learn and improve. I have posted a fairly long message to the editor explaining what I see as the major problems. If that helps to clear the problems up then that is great. If not, we can reconsider the situation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

2600:1001:B000:0:0:0:0:0/42

2600:1001:B000:0:0:0:0:0/42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi, you've blocked this IP range in the past, and as of recently, the range has seen lots of disruption, particularly at Curry (disambiguation). I know that this range appears to be a very wide one, so maybe semi-protection of the article might be a better idea instead, but given the lengthy block log history, a block on the IP range may be necessary too. Thanks. 99.254.210.186 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The substantial majority of the edits over a very long time have been vandalism and other disruptive editing, a large proportion of it clearly from one person, but there have been some constructive edits, making a range block unattractive. However, protecting pages is not likely to be successful, because looking back at the history it is clear that one person moves about to different articles. On balance, the best option seems to be to block the range again, despite the moderate amount of collateral damage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Chelseaschoen

Hi JamesBWatson - I have made multiple attempts to create a page for a general psychology sub-field (Rehabilitation Psychology) and have had significant difficulty doing so. The last attempt was deleted entirely and flagged with a G12 notification. As far as I understand, this indicates "unambiguous copyright violation." However, the content was created originally with appropriate references/citations included throughout. Could you specify the specific content that was in question so that I can address this? Or if you have any recommendations as to how to proceed, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseaschoen (talk • contribs) 16:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chelseaschoen: You say that you have made "multiple attempts" to create this page, but your account has made only one edit before you posted to this page. Does that mean you have also used one or more other accounts? If so, shat other account(s)? Also, can you tell me the titles of your other attempts to create the page, so that I can check their history? I might be able to give fuller and more helpful answers if I could do so.

Why do you mention the fact that the content has "appropriate references/citations"? It was deleted because of copyright infringement, not because of lack of citations. Are you perhaps making the very common mistake of confusing copyright infringement with plagiarism? Saying where you got content from obviously avoids any possibility of being thought to be trying to dishonestly pass off someone else's work (which is what plagiarism is) but a person's right to decide who may use work they have created (which is essentially what copyright is) does not disappear because someone who copies it without permission says where they are copying it from.

Although it was over a month ago I remember this case. I spent a considerable amount of time checking the sources from which your version was derived. I do not intend to spend the time that would be needed to source every detail again, but to illustrate the matter here are three comparisons of text from the paragraph spanning pages 48-49 of the APA Div 22 Leadership Manual (January 2018 revision) with text from the page that you created on Wikipedia:

APA Manual: FRP provides a philanthropic base for supporting education and research in Rehabilitation Psychology
Wikipedia page: FRP provides a philanthropic base for supporting education and research in Rehabilitation Psychology.

APA Manual: Division 22 focuses on the science and practice of professional psychology.
Wikipedia page: Division 22 focuses within the realm of professional psychology, both science and practice.

APA Manual: CRPPTP focuses on students and training programs.
Wikipedia page: CRPPTP focuses within the realm of students and training programs.

In the first of those three examples the wording is identical, while in the others it is sufficiently close that nobody seeing the two could be in any doubt that the one is a slightly reworded copy of the other. Minor changes such as adding the words "within the realm" do not alter that fact. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I was just curious why you blocked TheOldJacobite for edit-warring a few days ago, but not the other edit-warring, obvious single user who was clearly IP-hopping to counter-revert? (up to 6 reverts) Not even a warning? Thanks - wolf 23:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking back now I think I should have issued a warning about edit-warring. I may have had a reason for not doing so that I don't remember now, but it's very likely that it was just an oversight. As for blocking TheOldJacobite and not the IP editor, the situation was not symmetrical, for at least the following reasons. Another editor (an administrator, in fact) had supported the IP editor on the talk page, while there was no third-party support for TheOldJacobite's editing. TheOldJacobite supported his or her editing by denying that sources said what they do in fact say. TheOldJacobite has an extensive history of edit-warring over the course of many years, including three blocks for doing so, so he or she is very well aware of the issue, and needs no leeway. TheOldJacobite tried to gain advantage in the dispute first by requesting page protection and then, when that failed, by trying to get the IP editor blocked for alleged "vandalism", without offering any evidence of vandalism at all, and also stating that the IP editor had not tried to deal with the matter on the talk page, despite the fact that he or she had in fact done so. None of those considerations applied to the IP editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Redactyll

This user seems to be trying to make grammatical corrections etc. on numerous articles, but often these edits are redundant or incorrect. Examples of incorrect edits include [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] and [30]. Examples of redundant edits include [31], [32] and [33]. Could this new account be a sockpuppet of User:Rithme4 or User:Graph.williams by any chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackintheBox (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems unlikely, because the times of day at which the new account edits are very different from those for the other two accounts you mention. However, there is clearly a problem there, and it will be a good idea to keep a watch on the account's editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Noted. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 17:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@JackintheBox: I see that User:Quale posted to the editor's talk page with similar concerns earlier today. Perhaps you could post your diffs there also? Doug Weller talk 19:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Home Lander (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles on World War I generals

Thank you for reminding one of GLAM/Pritzker's unpaid student interns about conflicts of interest. He had his COI declared on his user page as I do on mine. He was drafting articles on long dead American generals who meet WP:SOLDIER using a reliable biographical dictionary of soldiers as one of his sources and is aware of WP:BIO. As an intern who is writing for Wikipedia for the first time, he is aware of the teahouse. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@TeriEmbrey: Thanks for telling me, though I was in fact already aware of the essential substance of most of what you say, having read all of the relevant information that I could find before posting about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

New IP hopper to keep an eye on

Hi, JamesB. Wanted to give you a heads-up regarding 109.148.132.143 & 109.148.132.94, almost certainly the same editor and not very keen on being corrected. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I agree, but since the editor has not edited now in over 24 hours, there's not much point in doing anything now. However, I have posted a note to User talk:109.148.132.94 , and watchlisted the article, and if the problem continues I will be willing to consider whether any action is needed. Of course, one of the difficulties in this kind of situation is that there is no way of being sure that the editor will ever see the message, as his or her IP address is likely to have changed again by next time he or she comes back, if that ever hapens. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Bankset

do you oppose the bankset article, please confirm here on my talk page if you oppose de facto ? or shall i proceed and start the article again.? please restaure the draft page and the 40 references listed there to avoid a rewrite. thanks for you understanding i confirm am not related to this team only an engineer at the engineering institute and want to disscuss the topic with the scientific community --Sunlinestar (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sunlinestar: What do you mean by "oppose de facto"? You already know that I think the spam page that you created is unacceptable, since I deleted it, and you also know my reasons.

There is no question of restoring the page that I deleted, as it was an unambiguous copyright infringement.

No version of the page had as many as 40 references.

As for starting the article again, I agree with the answer already given to you by Deb on her talk page, after you posted the same message to her as to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

its probably an intelectual missunderstanding i dont understand what you want and your point is ambivalent and unclear seems linked to personal interest ?

we are relatively busy and have more important things to do

pls restaurant the draft page where more than 45 new references listed in major press articles and scientific research about the topic .

exemple : https://www.google.it/search?q=bankset energy&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVwJWDxc_eAhWi4YUKHQPSAV4Q_AUIDygC&biw=1366&bih=636

pls reply with a direct answear do you oppose the facto and will you delete the page if we start again with a proper format as per the 85 references and news line available on the topic.

if wikipedia does not want an article about Bankset make a clear statement that you de facto oppose and save us time . we will not come again.

end of the story i have no interest in arguing with a stranger that has no name but a pseudo....

THE POINT IS RESTAURING THE PAGE AND REMOVE THE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT THOUGHT WE ARE ALLOWED FROM THE SITE TO USE THIS TEXT SO ITS NOT A COPYRIGHT ISSUE.

"" --Sunlinestar (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

pls bring the article here cut and paste: with all the 45 references that we worked on for hours.... cut and paste here we can argue and progress from your talk page and look at the issues one after the other. no problem.--Sunlinestar (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a severe difficulty in communicating with you in English, but I will try just once more.

So you don't like the fact that I use a pseudonym. So presumably "Sunlinestar" is your real name? Or do we have rather absurd double standards?
So the owners of the web site have given you permission to use their material, despite the fact that you are "not related" to them? Or is there some kind of mistake there?
The article that I deleted had 35 references. I have checked every single revision of the article, and at no time did it have more than 35 references.
I can't answer "do you oppose the facto" because I have no idea what it is intended to mean.
Wikipedia's copyright policy does not permit me to restore content copied from elsewhere unless we have proof that the copyright owners have released the content for free reuse by anyone in the world, for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, as it is or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. Unless they have released it under such broad terms posting it to Wikipedia would be illegal. We need proof, not just the say-so of some unidentifiable person who comes along to Wikipedia and says so.
The page was an unambiguous attempt to use Wikipedia for advertising, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you came here honestly not knowing that advertising was not permitted, and therefore wasted a lot of time, then I have every sympathy for you, but I'm afraid having sympathy with you is not going to lead me to acting against Wikipedia policy. The best advice I can offer is always to read the terms of use of any web site where you intend to post material. I know that won't help you this time, but it may help avert similar problems in future.
I have spent a significant amount of my time writing these messages, in the hope that they will help you to better understand what the issues are. If you now do understand better, then my time has been well spent. If not, then there probably isn't any point in putting yet more time into trying to explain, as if you don't understand by now then you probably aren't going to. Like you, I have more important things to do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There may be a clue here? Paid promotional editing methinks. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)