![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Hi James, Just a courtesy note that I changed your full protection to semi; I assume this wasn't intentionally full protection, as there has been only one autoconfirmed vandal in the last 6 months. But if there's something I'm missing please let me know (or just revert me if I'm not around). I left the indefinite duration in place, in case that's what you intended. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mr Watson,
Shortly before Christmas an article that I had created on the software company EidosMedia was tagged for speedy deletion and then deleted. You left me a message saying that you were responsible for this decision. I now intend to recreate this article and I am writing to you for guidance in ensuring that it does not meet the fate of its predecessor.
The changes I intend to make are the following; • I will use the Talk page to declare my conflict of interest. I am an external consultant for the company in question. I think you will agree, however, that the neutrality and notability of an artcle should be judged from its content and not from its source. • I hope to establish the notability of the subject by detailing the wide use of the company’s products (leading supplier of editorial systems in France, use by Washington Post , Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal in the USA) and its important role in allowing quality print journalism to migrate successfully to digital media and mobile devices. • I will provide a list of references to specialist and general sources establishing the innovative nature of the company’s technology and it’s significance in the evolution of digital news media.
If you have any other suggestions for how the content of the article may be made to comply with Wikipedia publication standards, I shall be gald to receive them.
Yours sincerely,
David Baker Davidchbaker ( talk) 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.
I will create a new draft of the article in a sandbox over the next few days and ask you to review it before I publish it.
Thanks for your help,
David Baker Davidchbaker ( talk) 10:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The text on Alpha Phi Omega that was removed from Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines which got User:Alemnur blocked was readded in User Talk:Alemnur, I've commented out the categories, but I'm not sure whether the entire text can/should be deleted. Naraht ( talk) 11:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear JamesBWatson, please advise how i can learn and understand better wikipedia. Thank you TeddyV ( talk) 14:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Also if the reliable source is publication as an example Magazine which is printed and have also online version, how do i point this material as reliable source TeddyV ( talk) 14:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello JamesBWatson, I did edit Canidae, but for various reasons. Why do you call taking away evolutionary facts and replacing them with true Biblical facts vandalism. Can you actually prove to me that evolution did take place, and not Creation? If so, show me. JoJaEpp ( talk) 01:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou for your comments. I am not a religious fundamentalist. Creation is not a religion, it is a fact. Do you know that evolution actually was made up; it never existed. I think you should research it a bit more before stating such things. In fact, evolution has never been shown to be true. Charles Darwin when talking about the complexity of the human eye in his Origin of Species said," To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Another evolutionist and an anthropologist (Sir Arthur Keith)said,"Evolution is unproved and uprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." ( in fact, Creation is very provable and probable compared to evolution.)Think of the "Cambrian explosion"; it is a complete contradiction to the theory of evolution. According to evolution, cells were supposed to gradually multiply and diversify; however, there pretty much was an explosion of fossils in Cambrian layer while there is no sign of life in the Precambrian. These are just some of the false facts of evolution. Think of the diversity of the world and the universe; it is simply impossible every thing could happen by chance. Does it take more faith to believe in a Creator or in chance? Also you cannot block me as I am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia, I am trying to further it by putting right info in it. Thank you. JoJaEpp ( talk) 01:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Then think of it this way. I think we all agree that no humans were around when the world was formed. That means we all have faith about how we believe this world was formed ( whether evolution or creation). So, explain how you think evolution ( which is the belief in complete chance), is more likely at happening than Creation ( which is the belief that everything was created by a Creator). If you don't want me to force my opinion then, fine, I won't because obviously it won't work. But I am personally asking you a question about what you think. JoJaEpp ( talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all, how is Evolution a neutral point of view? It has not been proved a fact, therefore it is still a theory. That means you cannot throw out Creation as some strong bias. Evolution is the same way, it also cannot be proved as something that actually took place. I agree with you that believing there is a Creator takes faith, but believing evolution took place also takes faith. The reason for this is just as I said before. No one was around to see how the earth was formed. Do you know what faith is? It is believing in something you can't see or for sure know that it happened. Therefore if you're so strongly arguing in favour of evolution, how can you say that you have no faith in the matter at all? I have heard talks on the subject by evolutionists who became Creationists just because of the sheer evidence against evolution. Did you read what I said about Charles Darwin? He himself agreed that evolution has a very small chance that it possibly could have happened. That Special Creation took place is a quite a bit more likely. Have you ever read the Bible? In it is the account of the world wide flood. There are many evidences like that of the Grand Canyon which favour it. The theory of Evolution says that the rock layers should show themselves in the right order with the fossils in their right places within the rock strata. However, there has never been one place that has this right order throughout the whole earth. Evolution also says that transitional forms should take place between different organisms as they evolve. This has also been proved wrong as there has never been one found. What do you think? Both Evolution and Creation are not proved facts, but which is the more likely? JoJaEpp ( talk) 00:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If I wished to argue about these issues I would look for an online forum or blog that deals with the subject: I am sure there must be some. That is not the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page. If you are really interesting in knowing what the answers to your points are, then, as I have already pointed out, there are plenty of published accounts you may read. JamesBWatson ( talk) 07:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I know the answers to my points; I am seeing if you know the answers. Do you wish to argue about these issues? If so, what would be an appropriate website? JoJaEpp ( talk) 01:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not arguing for the sake of it. These are reasonable facts, and Wikipedia cannot just accept evolution, when there are facts to prove Creation very probably happened. However, if you do not want to debate about this, then that is your choice, but remember that evolution is not a proved fact. JoJaEpp ( talk) 19:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I am so dull about all this. Does this mean that I cannot add any mention of my blog, even if not naming it? I notice that elsewhere on Wikipedia there is mention of a blog calling itself "Iraq Inquiry Digest". This is privately owned and by an individual who is not necessariy neutral. In fact he is well-known to be very anti the Iraq war. He writes anti articles at The Guardian. There seems to be plenty of links on Wikipedia to such opinions, and few at all in support ot Tony Blair and his decisions. My blog, btw, is not centred around the Iraq war, though I do occasionally write on it.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlairSupporter ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
__________
OK, James. I think I get the message. Thank you. I'll go away now.
Blair Supporter — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlairSupporter ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. I give up.
Now - how do I delete the coversations on here between us?
Thank you. BlairSupporter ( talk) 23:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sudo Ghost 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Bryce ( talk | contribs) 12:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, you just now blocked User:JohnDavidsonLA, but I think this was in error. Reviewing the history of the edits, it looks as though there wasn't any vandalism at all in the users edits at all. The edits were not vandalism, insofar as it looks like the user was genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia, but being a newb, was going about it wrong. Instead of being helped, it looks like Mattythewhite simply decided for himself it was vandalism, warned the shit out of him, and reported him. However, this edit clearly shows that he's trying to do something, but having trouble. Matty appears to have ignored this, and warned and then reported him. I don't see any obvious vandalism in these edits at all, and was in the process of explaining this at WP:AIV, when I noticed you had already blocked him. Could you please review and reconsider, or explain what about this user's edits you found to be vandalism, if I am misreading this situation? Thanks! -- Jayron 32 15:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
why do you critisize and not help? english is my second language, i know i am abrupt but it is how i was raised and i cant not and i will not help that. I Believe that inserting penis size by RACE is important for a wikipedia encyclopedia as it is the TRUTH. If you disagree that penis size is the same for every race i will show you evidence but surely you are no innocent child all you have to do is watch a pornographic movie and you will see. Please Help Me insert this data bestly into wikipedia? 124.180.159.192 ( talk) 10:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
oh wow i ask for help and I am called, a racsit? thankyou very much mister james b waston, do you want to rip out my heart and soul out while you are at it? if the 'person' you are refering to is tommy robinson, then you should be ashamed for defending such a disgusting piece of pig filth. educate yourself on youtube about his views, he is racist. i digress, i have not been in here long, and i may be young but i am well respected within the Islamic community but i want to become a part of the wikipedia australia community, pleeeeeeeease help me, i believe you to be an intelligent forthright person and there are not enough Islamic editors =) Peace 124.180.159.192 ( talk) 08:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killingussoftly ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 January 2012
I am half Spanish and fluent in Spanish. I can easily see if an source is reliable or not. In the case of SeaBoy (which BTW is an banned user that has reappeared with an different username, he admitted so on his talk page) recent edits on the Real Madrid page and his inclusion of the false claim of Real Madrid being the most successful in terms of domestic and international trophies, is an absurd action considering the fact that such a claim has no reason on earth.
First of all the sources are unreliable blogs/football pages that are free for all to participate in. I happen to know a writer on that page (blachereport). His name is Manuel Traquente and he is not even 18 years old. The two blogs do not include the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup which is officially recognized by FIFA and UEFA as being the predecessor of the UEFA Cup nor do they include the Copa Eva Duarte trophy, founded and organized by RFEF and regarded as the predecessor of the current Spanish Super Cup. Therefore it should not be valid as a source.
Moreover this is a wrong statement as FC Barcelona have more domestic and international trophies. And I only include trophies recognized by either RFEF (The Royal Spanish Football Federation), UEFA and FIFA.
For further explanation and proof of me being right, see the Real Madrid discussion page or the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages of FC Barcelona. Both versions are using reliable sources from one of the biggest Spanish sportpapapers.
It is an untrue and biased statement that can not be proven by reliable sources therefore it must be removed-- Crashwheelx ( talk) 16:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please restore User:JuniusThaddeus and revert whatever vandalism caused you to delete it? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 22:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a disambiguation page. It is not needed because the mainspace article is " Stupid in Love". Aaron • You Da One 22:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see: [1] and [2], and this also: [3]. Abhijay ( ☎ Talk) ( ✐ Deeds) 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
You must unblock IP address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.73.110.128 , because this is result of your mistake only. Exists discussion of the important issues, but not something bad. Dinamic IP is not sin. You watched to the name of the topic, you wrongly understood the situation because of this (copy from OTRS). All the issues already resolved with good result. Only details are discussed now, to be free of mistakes and so on. - 2.94.180.4 ( talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC).
why did you delete my page in wikipedia?
Elnaz Rezaei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whearezeb ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
At first you published my page in wikipedia and there was no problem about being this page, but there were jealous people that they deleted my page more times because of editing and after it my page went to the section of the articles for deletin I tried many times to recreate my page but you delete my page every time because my page's name is in black list of deletation. Dear Watson whole of the my information are real and I dont like you to delete my page evey time because of my sick enemies that they have deleted my page for showing my page as an empty contect.
Elnaz Rezaei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.193.105 ( talk) 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
From this, it's obvious this guy's an SPA, so you might as well just indef him. I'd recommend blocking 96.233.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a few hours to get rid of his socking. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Be polite dear B Watson.You have to be patient infront of the people that they Have been a misunderstanding.I forgive your aggretion.Good Luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whearezeb ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 30 January 2012
Looks familiar, see their "new" article, List of Tinga Tinga Tales episodes. "New" user, started with the proper template for under construction, same interests, same methods. Still early, but I would bet next week's lunch money on it even at this stage. Dennis Brown ( talk) 01:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Sir. I request you please to enter the valid information of P.K. Banerjee's goal scoring record as the highest goal scorer by an Indian player. He had scored 65 goals in 84 international games which he played during his career according to WIKIPEDIA.
Check using the link " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pradip_Kumar_Banerjee "
As your site's page is about top all-time male goal scorer for each national football team where the top scorer has a minimum 20 goals in official international matches for his country. Players who are currently active at international level are indicated in bold type. This list is not an all-time top international goal scorers list, as some country's second top scorer could have scored more than another country's top scorer. It only lists the top scorer for each country. So I request to register his name please.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.136.196.157 ( talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have protected Hacker T. Dog from creation, which makes sense given the number of times that it's been taken down. However, there is now an at-least-defensible article at Hacker the Dog. Judging from Google searches, Hacker T. Dog is the more common name for this character (and the one that's linked in CBBC); can we remove the creation protection so that the article can be moved to that title? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, he's back again under another IP, see the SPI. Calabe 1992 04:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry if I have to tell you this on short notice, but can you block 121.1.11.118 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Repeat vandal. Please provide action ASAP. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi James,
You placed a final warning on this user's talkpage a couple of days ago, saying: "The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." I've just tagged their article Tamkeen Center For Legal Aid & Human Rights for G11 (and G12) violations. I'm ambivalent as to whether they get blocked or not, but thought I'd best raise the issue with you since G11 indicates promotional endeavours. Yunshui 雲 水 14:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
who are you to say i have made an act of vandalism trying to make a teelt page ????
is it a joke ...?????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisoneisnotused ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Hi. Remember me?? You'd shocked me few days ago by suddenly deleting 7 of my created pages. Anyways, it was my mistake. I understand that i'd copied the materials and i'll recreate those articles later which will NOT b copied material.
I just wanted to appericiate your efforts in removing the things that r violating the policies. One advise for u: 'b litle more kind to neophytes'. Still, u do a excellent job. U DESERVE THIS BARNSTAR!! Yasht101 ( talk) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
Someone - probably User:Tony00142 - has moved Idukki district to Idukki God's Own District. It needs to be moved back but I cannot do it. Can you assist please? - Sitush ( talk) 11:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The user who was just blocked for calling others "cunts" repeatedly is now referring to others as "Nazis" on his user talk page ( User talk:Spitfire3000). I find that highly offensive. Could this be removed/stopped, and does it merit an extended block? Tataral ( talk) 14:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice work - was just about to get started, but you beat me to it. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why you have reverted talk page edits referring to SciAm sources added by the recently blocked IP 97.87.29.188? These edits don't look like vandalism to me, and they are relevant to the article. They don't seem to be promotional, either. Thanks, Nageh ( talk) 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your interest in the issue. FYI, pursuant to WP:VANDALISM, "Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially. (Italics added) For any possible violation, this means we have to get into the poster's mind a bit in order to tell if their posts are (A) legitimate external link(s) or (B) external link spam vandalism. How do we gain such insight? That's simple.... you look at their track record. In this case,
Clearly, these posts were "mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially". Therefore, they are not just external links but external link spam, which is defined as a form of WP:VANDALISM. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Probable sock is editing right now. See this NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 06:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Yet another kalamazoo IP... 99.19.44.50 is online now, editing the same batch of climate articles. This time, for the most part they are just making wikilinks and external links out of existing article text but are not editing that text. I find this less annoying than the link spam, except for the (suspected) block evasion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a discussion about this AfD somewhere? She is listed in the Norton/Grove encyclopedia, which is sufficient evidence of notability. Pkeets ( talk) 14:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Is the current version similar to the many versions that have previously been speedy deleted? Being a lowly editor, I'm not privy to prior versions. I don't have a horse in this race, I just have it in my watch list from tagging a long time ago on new page watch. It has been speedy deleted 4 times, however, so I thought it was worth looking at. Not sure if it should have been speedied or AFDed before, I thought it was always borderline on notability, but not as strongly as previous admins who speedied it. Anyway, a fresh set of eyes on it may be warranted. Dennis Brown ( talk) 23:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted a previously posted message. I had sent this message to you and another administrator Jayjg ( talk), who is now helping me with my issue. Thanks, Jones ( talk) 05:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! We had a lenghty discussion (maybe you know abt it) for Indic scripts and IPA related to Indian articles here. The result was to include IPA for all biographical articles so that non-Indians can read the name. It took me a long time to write that cluster of words. Can you please try reading [dʒɡdʒiːt̪ sɪnɡʱ] as per Wikipedia:IPA for Hindi and Urdu and see if it really helps? And i doubt anyone would ever find any source for this. Editors would just have to add it as per their interpretation and incase of dispute, discuss it. - Animeshkulkarni ( talk) 14:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello James... I am not to sure how this wikipedia thing works... I am trying to make a page for an organization that really helped my father out while he was suffering from post tramatic stress... I tried mimicing the page of the heart and stress foundation but even tho the content is extremely similar you guys keep saying i am trying to promote this organization. I just think this organization deserves recognization within in the enclcyopedic world. PLease let me know what i can do to make this page work..
thank you so much
( Kelsey pitt ( talk) 16:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Kelsey Pitt)
Thank you very much James! I have alot of information about PTSD and this foundation. I am just not sure how to present it without seeming like I am working for the company or anything like that. Any advice you can give me to work on it would be great!!
( Kelsey pitt ( talk) 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Kelsey Pitt)
Hi James... Me again.. Can u have a look at my page to see if it is getting any better.. I am trying to reference sources and stuff but before iw aste anymore time i want to be assured im heading in the right direction....
( Kelsey pitt ( talk) 17:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Kelsey Pitt)
PS!! i just read your message fully and i think you may be right... the slow steady pace may be better for me... if this doesnt work this time around i am just going to start the old fashion way and work my way up. :)Thank you for all your help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelsey pitt ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello JameBWatson want to help me create a bot can.-- BrunoHe ( talk) 17:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Jones ( talk) 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
hi i was wondering why the page KuzzNshazziie was closed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzznshazziie , how do is not indicate the significance of the subject? thanks! ( 92.21.78.214 ( talk) 13:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC))
The website is recognized by wikipedia as CC http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Indianetzone Including http://www.4to40.com/history/index.asp?p=Gupta_Period_Early_Fourth_to_Mid-Eighth_Centuary_A.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi James; there's an Articles for Creation submission in which I think addressed the issues in the AfD debate. However, it appears that you have create-protected the page. If you think the submission is o.k. for article space, could you please release the protection? Thanks and regards, Bryce ( talk | contribs) 02:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Why was the Sensory, Inc entry deleted? What specifically is promotional or advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavius SV ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
So My computer has been laggy and I thought it was just me being weird but then I started seeing all these links in "my computer so I followed them .... But I deduced was a project to profile people based on there web history etc... And as i dug a little deeper into the 12 internet connections in my window list .. I only have one... I was brought to Wikipedia... I'm sorry for all the trouble I caused ... but some of you's should be the sorry ones ... I was only tryin to figure out what was goin on and I was bein threatened " I am grateful for what AMA has done for me, can I help?
You can make a donation to Wikimedia or volunteer in some fashion that helps the Wikipedian
community. There are many ways to get involved; you might even want to start your own
voluntary association in Wikipedia around some issue or concern that you have. We are a
virtual community, anything is possible, just remember "If you do not want your writing to
be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it."4:45 PM 2/5/2012" This is completely un American You's should be ashamed ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.169.27 ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 February 2012
I greatly appreciate your prompt action against the aggressive IP user 118.127.68.110. Cheers, Bjenks ( talk) 00:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Calabe 1992 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Calabe 1992 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I am the subject of scrutiny. Give me the chance and I will amend for my past mistakes. Unlike others, i will own up to my past sins. Because I care. Cigaro Pizarro ( talk) 16:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind undoing the removal of this category from all articles you removed it from please? Although this particular category was created by a banned user, was it really doing any harm to leave it alone? You could have deleted the category and then re-created it yourself if you felt that strongly about it, but deleting the category and then removing it from all articles was, albeit unintentionally, disruptive. The "Maritime incidents in (year)" categories are well established as part of WP:SHIPS categorisation. Mjroots ( talk) 16:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Said good. FPAS is idiot comparing to you. Cheers. 79.191.251.232 ( talk) 09:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you assist me with another page move, please? Thomas Cope (1827-1884) needs to be moved to Thomas Cope now that I have correctly named the latter as Thomas Cope (disambiguation). - Sitush ( talk) 12:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
For trying to make Wikipedia a better place through the acts of banning and cleaning up Wikipedia. I am a new user here attempting to make a difference and it is people like you who make my life easier. Thanks again, and have a nice day. TheSandwhichWriter ( talk) 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Watson,
I am Ferdinand Alido, a Director of Elizabeth Seton School, Philippines. I am writing to you because it seems you have deleted the article about our school. I have corresponded with Ms. Sarah Ewart regarding this and she mentioned that the deletion was requested by the author, apparently a student. She also mentioned that the article was only edited once by the same author. I cannot agree to this because I myself edited some details of the article.
Wikipedia discourages people who have associations to the topic from contributing which leads me here. We would like to request the article to be uploaded again, if possible. In case this request is not possible, I am requesting permission to author a new article. As a professional educator myself, I am bound to follow your guidelines on encyclopedic writing using a neutral tone. I will also provide sufficient verifiable sources which should fit with Wikipedia standards. I understand that Wikipedia discourages this but please understand that we cannot expect an outsider to know more about our organization.
Hoping for your kindest considerations.
Thank you.
Ferdinand Alido Director - Finance Elizabeth Seton School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdalido ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, please don't bother with childish games. Thank you. -- Brutus Brummfuß ( talk) 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello "James",
I have looked thorugh the relevent dispute resolution process so this is my first attempt to contact you before I proceed further. As recommeded I will take your edit as a resonably good hearted intention, however if you continue to remove my edit, whereby all I am doing is siting a known and relevent method for said subject and also backing it up with a reference/s, then I will continue my resolution process and deem your editing as malicious and subordinate when I inform Wikipedia admin (or whoever may be concerned) of the intended abuse of your role.
There was no advertisement in what I said, before you edit my edits again, read the references and prove me wrong by way of a polite discussion.
I am lead to believe you know very little on this subject by way of how you are acting, yet you are ok to leave in subjects and references to said page in relation to "exercises" whom have NO scientific proof or basis, this speaks volumes and I would love for you to be able to change my mind, after all, I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Sincerely,
Dr Mothvam on behalf of Andromedical S.L - Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Mothvam ( talk • contribs) 09:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Shall I take it as though my first attempt at communicating with you resulted in an all but a self opinionated response on behalf of the "Admin" that decided to remove relevant and substantiated information ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Mothvam ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 February 2012
Hi... I just reverted the addition of malicious content. Normally just a revert and warning, but this one contained a phone number and name and I'd like to get it redacted. What's the best route to take to get that done? Here's the diff Thanks! Wikipelli Talk 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
... for all your efforts on WP. Glrx ( talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Tom's page happens to be on my watchlist, so I saw your comment. The mistake is not his. He reported ip 64.238.233.58 [4]. 218.. was reported by User:Dcshank [5]. Paul B ( talk) 20:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I didn't report that one; I reported the one you blocked. And thanks for taking care of it. I'm pretty sure it's from a computer in a middle school library. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
:- ) DCS 20:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Legal threat at my talk page. Abhijay ( ☎ Talk) ( ✐ Deeds) 08:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
An anon user keeps making changes to the article that I feel drastically change the scope. He adds "and related citrus flavorings" or previously "and other citrus products with bergamottin such as Earl Grey Tea" to the article, essentially saying that bergamottin is the only thing that causes the potential reactions with drugs and grapefruit juice. Since this wasn't added before, I keep trying to convince him that a citation IS required, as you now basically changing the article from saying "Grapefruit juice can cause interactions with drugs" to "anything with bergamottin, including Earl Grey tea, can cause reactions with drugs." There is another chemically similar drug, 6’,7’-dihydroxybergamottin, which together cause the "grapefruit effect", not just the one, but regardless, a change like this *must* have a citation to stay, should it not? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Again, my concern isn't the accuracy, it is that making such a large claim requires citation. We have been reverting back and forth for a while, I keep asking him to provide a cite, he basically says I have to provide a cite to prove him wrong (dont get me started...). His faith is good, but his methods aren't. Any help or input would be swell. Dennis Brown ( talk) 21:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Hi James, Just a courtesy note that I changed your full protection to semi; I assume this wasn't intentionally full protection, as there has been only one autoconfirmed vandal in the last 6 months. But if there's something I'm missing please let me know (or just revert me if I'm not around). I left the indefinite duration in place, in case that's what you intended. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mr Watson,
Shortly before Christmas an article that I had created on the software company EidosMedia was tagged for speedy deletion and then deleted. You left me a message saying that you were responsible for this decision. I now intend to recreate this article and I am writing to you for guidance in ensuring that it does not meet the fate of its predecessor.
The changes I intend to make are the following; • I will use the Talk page to declare my conflict of interest. I am an external consultant for the company in question. I think you will agree, however, that the neutrality and notability of an artcle should be judged from its content and not from its source. • I hope to establish the notability of the subject by detailing the wide use of the company’s products (leading supplier of editorial systems in France, use by Washington Post , Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal in the USA) and its important role in allowing quality print journalism to migrate successfully to digital media and mobile devices. • I will provide a list of references to specialist and general sources establishing the innovative nature of the company’s technology and it’s significance in the evolution of digital news media.
If you have any other suggestions for how the content of the article may be made to comply with Wikipedia publication standards, I shall be gald to receive them.
Yours sincerely,
David Baker Davidchbaker ( talk) 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.
I will create a new draft of the article in a sandbox over the next few days and ask you to review it before I publish it.
Thanks for your help,
David Baker Davidchbaker ( talk) 10:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The text on Alpha Phi Omega that was removed from Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines which got User:Alemnur blocked was readded in User Talk:Alemnur, I've commented out the categories, but I'm not sure whether the entire text can/should be deleted. Naraht ( talk) 11:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear JamesBWatson, please advise how i can learn and understand better wikipedia. Thank you TeddyV ( talk) 14:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Also if the reliable source is publication as an example Magazine which is printed and have also online version, how do i point this material as reliable source TeddyV ( talk) 14:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello JamesBWatson, I did edit Canidae, but for various reasons. Why do you call taking away evolutionary facts and replacing them with true Biblical facts vandalism. Can you actually prove to me that evolution did take place, and not Creation? If so, show me. JoJaEpp ( talk) 01:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou for your comments. I am not a religious fundamentalist. Creation is not a religion, it is a fact. Do you know that evolution actually was made up; it never existed. I think you should research it a bit more before stating such things. In fact, evolution has never been shown to be true. Charles Darwin when talking about the complexity of the human eye in his Origin of Species said," To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Another evolutionist and an anthropologist (Sir Arthur Keith)said,"Evolution is unproved and uprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." ( in fact, Creation is very provable and probable compared to evolution.)Think of the "Cambrian explosion"; it is a complete contradiction to the theory of evolution. According to evolution, cells were supposed to gradually multiply and diversify; however, there pretty much was an explosion of fossils in Cambrian layer while there is no sign of life in the Precambrian. These are just some of the false facts of evolution. Think of the diversity of the world and the universe; it is simply impossible every thing could happen by chance. Does it take more faith to believe in a Creator or in chance? Also you cannot block me as I am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia, I am trying to further it by putting right info in it. Thank you. JoJaEpp ( talk) 01:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Then think of it this way. I think we all agree that no humans were around when the world was formed. That means we all have faith about how we believe this world was formed ( whether evolution or creation). So, explain how you think evolution ( which is the belief in complete chance), is more likely at happening than Creation ( which is the belief that everything was created by a Creator). If you don't want me to force my opinion then, fine, I won't because obviously it won't work. But I am personally asking you a question about what you think. JoJaEpp ( talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all, how is Evolution a neutral point of view? It has not been proved a fact, therefore it is still a theory. That means you cannot throw out Creation as some strong bias. Evolution is the same way, it also cannot be proved as something that actually took place. I agree with you that believing there is a Creator takes faith, but believing evolution took place also takes faith. The reason for this is just as I said before. No one was around to see how the earth was formed. Do you know what faith is? It is believing in something you can't see or for sure know that it happened. Therefore if you're so strongly arguing in favour of evolution, how can you say that you have no faith in the matter at all? I have heard talks on the subject by evolutionists who became Creationists just because of the sheer evidence against evolution. Did you read what I said about Charles Darwin? He himself agreed that evolution has a very small chance that it possibly could have happened. That Special Creation took place is a quite a bit more likely. Have you ever read the Bible? In it is the account of the world wide flood. There are many evidences like that of the Grand Canyon which favour it. The theory of Evolution says that the rock layers should show themselves in the right order with the fossils in their right places within the rock strata. However, there has never been one place that has this right order throughout the whole earth. Evolution also says that transitional forms should take place between different organisms as they evolve. This has also been proved wrong as there has never been one found. What do you think? Both Evolution and Creation are not proved facts, but which is the more likely? JoJaEpp ( talk) 00:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If I wished to argue about these issues I would look for an online forum or blog that deals with the subject: I am sure there must be some. That is not the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page. If you are really interesting in knowing what the answers to your points are, then, as I have already pointed out, there are plenty of published accounts you may read. JamesBWatson ( talk) 07:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I know the answers to my points; I am seeing if you know the answers. Do you wish to argue about these issues? If so, what would be an appropriate website? JoJaEpp ( talk) 01:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not arguing for the sake of it. These are reasonable facts, and Wikipedia cannot just accept evolution, when there are facts to prove Creation very probably happened. However, if you do not want to debate about this, then that is your choice, but remember that evolution is not a proved fact. JoJaEpp ( talk) 19:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I am so dull about all this. Does this mean that I cannot add any mention of my blog, even if not naming it? I notice that elsewhere on Wikipedia there is mention of a blog calling itself "Iraq Inquiry Digest". This is privately owned and by an individual who is not necessariy neutral. In fact he is well-known to be very anti the Iraq war. He writes anti articles at The Guardian. There seems to be plenty of links on Wikipedia to such opinions, and few at all in support ot Tony Blair and his decisions. My blog, btw, is not centred around the Iraq war, though I do occasionally write on it.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlairSupporter ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
__________
OK, James. I think I get the message. Thank you. I'll go away now.
Blair Supporter — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlairSupporter ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. I give up.
Now - how do I delete the coversations on here between us?
Thank you. BlairSupporter ( talk) 23:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sudo Ghost 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Bryce ( talk | contribs) 12:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, you just now blocked User:JohnDavidsonLA, but I think this was in error. Reviewing the history of the edits, it looks as though there wasn't any vandalism at all in the users edits at all. The edits were not vandalism, insofar as it looks like the user was genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia, but being a newb, was going about it wrong. Instead of being helped, it looks like Mattythewhite simply decided for himself it was vandalism, warned the shit out of him, and reported him. However, this edit clearly shows that he's trying to do something, but having trouble. Matty appears to have ignored this, and warned and then reported him. I don't see any obvious vandalism in these edits at all, and was in the process of explaining this at WP:AIV, when I noticed you had already blocked him. Could you please review and reconsider, or explain what about this user's edits you found to be vandalism, if I am misreading this situation? Thanks! -- Jayron 32 15:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
why do you critisize and not help? english is my second language, i know i am abrupt but it is how i was raised and i cant not and i will not help that. I Believe that inserting penis size by RACE is important for a wikipedia encyclopedia as it is the TRUTH. If you disagree that penis size is the same for every race i will show you evidence but surely you are no innocent child all you have to do is watch a pornographic movie and you will see. Please Help Me insert this data bestly into wikipedia? 124.180.159.192 ( talk) 10:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
oh wow i ask for help and I am called, a racsit? thankyou very much mister james b waston, do you want to rip out my heart and soul out while you are at it? if the 'person' you are refering to is tommy robinson, then you should be ashamed for defending such a disgusting piece of pig filth. educate yourself on youtube about his views, he is racist. i digress, i have not been in here long, and i may be young but i am well respected within the Islamic community but i want to become a part of the wikipedia australia community, pleeeeeeeease help me, i believe you to be an intelligent forthright person and there are not enough Islamic editors =) Peace 124.180.159.192 ( talk) 08:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killingussoftly ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 January 2012
I am half Spanish and fluent in Spanish. I can easily see if an source is reliable or not. In the case of SeaBoy (which BTW is an banned user that has reappeared with an different username, he admitted so on his talk page) recent edits on the Real Madrid page and his inclusion of the false claim of Real Madrid being the most successful in terms of domestic and international trophies, is an absurd action considering the fact that such a claim has no reason on earth.
First of all the sources are unreliable blogs/football pages that are free for all to participate in. I happen to know a writer on that page (blachereport). His name is Manuel Traquente and he is not even 18 years old. The two blogs do not include the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup which is officially recognized by FIFA and UEFA as being the predecessor of the UEFA Cup nor do they include the Copa Eva Duarte trophy, founded and organized by RFEF and regarded as the predecessor of the current Spanish Super Cup. Therefore it should not be valid as a source.
Moreover this is a wrong statement as FC Barcelona have more domestic and international trophies. And I only include trophies recognized by either RFEF (The Royal Spanish Football Federation), UEFA and FIFA.
For further explanation and proof of me being right, see the Real Madrid discussion page or the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages of FC Barcelona. Both versions are using reliable sources from one of the biggest Spanish sportpapapers.
It is an untrue and biased statement that can not be proven by reliable sources therefore it must be removed-- Crashwheelx ( talk) 16:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please restore User:JuniusThaddeus and revert whatever vandalism caused you to delete it? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 22:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a disambiguation page. It is not needed because the mainspace article is " Stupid in Love". Aaron • You Da One 22:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see: [1] and [2], and this also: [3]. Abhijay ( ☎ Talk) ( ✐ Deeds) 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
You must unblock IP address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.73.110.128 , because this is result of your mistake only. Exists discussion of the important issues, but not something bad. Dinamic IP is not sin. You watched to the name of the topic, you wrongly understood the situation because of this (copy from OTRS). All the issues already resolved with good result. Only details are discussed now, to be free of mistakes and so on. - 2.94.180.4 ( talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC).
why did you delete my page in wikipedia?
Elnaz Rezaei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whearezeb ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
At first you published my page in wikipedia and there was no problem about being this page, but there were jealous people that they deleted my page more times because of editing and after it my page went to the section of the articles for deletin I tried many times to recreate my page but you delete my page every time because my page's name is in black list of deletation. Dear Watson whole of the my information are real and I dont like you to delete my page evey time because of my sick enemies that they have deleted my page for showing my page as an empty contect.
Elnaz Rezaei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.193.105 ( talk) 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
From this, it's obvious this guy's an SPA, so you might as well just indef him. I'd recommend blocking 96.233.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a few hours to get rid of his socking. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Be polite dear B Watson.You have to be patient infront of the people that they Have been a misunderstanding.I forgive your aggretion.Good Luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whearezeb ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 30 January 2012
Looks familiar, see their "new" article, List of Tinga Tinga Tales episodes. "New" user, started with the proper template for under construction, same interests, same methods. Still early, but I would bet next week's lunch money on it even at this stage. Dennis Brown ( talk) 01:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Sir. I request you please to enter the valid information of P.K. Banerjee's goal scoring record as the highest goal scorer by an Indian player. He had scored 65 goals in 84 international games which he played during his career according to WIKIPEDIA.
Check using the link " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pradip_Kumar_Banerjee "
As your site's page is about top all-time male goal scorer for each national football team where the top scorer has a minimum 20 goals in official international matches for his country. Players who are currently active at international level are indicated in bold type. This list is not an all-time top international goal scorers list, as some country's second top scorer could have scored more than another country's top scorer. It only lists the top scorer for each country. So I request to register his name please.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.136.196.157 ( talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have protected Hacker T. Dog from creation, which makes sense given the number of times that it's been taken down. However, there is now an at-least-defensible article at Hacker the Dog. Judging from Google searches, Hacker T. Dog is the more common name for this character (and the one that's linked in CBBC); can we remove the creation protection so that the article can be moved to that title? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, he's back again under another IP, see the SPI. Calabe 1992 04:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry if I have to tell you this on short notice, but can you block 121.1.11.118 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Repeat vandal. Please provide action ASAP. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi James,
You placed a final warning on this user's talkpage a couple of days ago, saying: "The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." I've just tagged their article Tamkeen Center For Legal Aid & Human Rights for G11 (and G12) violations. I'm ambivalent as to whether they get blocked or not, but thought I'd best raise the issue with you since G11 indicates promotional endeavours. Yunshui 雲 水 14:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
who are you to say i have made an act of vandalism trying to make a teelt page ????
is it a joke ...?????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisoneisnotused ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Hi. Remember me?? You'd shocked me few days ago by suddenly deleting 7 of my created pages. Anyways, it was my mistake. I understand that i'd copied the materials and i'll recreate those articles later which will NOT b copied material.
I just wanted to appericiate your efforts in removing the things that r violating the policies. One advise for u: 'b litle more kind to neophytes'. Still, u do a excellent job. U DESERVE THIS BARNSTAR!! Yasht101 ( talk) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
Someone - probably User:Tony00142 - has moved Idukki district to Idukki God's Own District. It needs to be moved back but I cannot do it. Can you assist please? - Sitush ( talk) 11:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The user who was just blocked for calling others "cunts" repeatedly is now referring to others as "Nazis" on his user talk page ( User talk:Spitfire3000). I find that highly offensive. Could this be removed/stopped, and does it merit an extended block? Tataral ( talk) 14:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice work - was just about to get started, but you beat me to it. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why you have reverted talk page edits referring to SciAm sources added by the recently blocked IP 97.87.29.188? These edits don't look like vandalism to me, and they are relevant to the article. They don't seem to be promotional, either. Thanks, Nageh ( talk) 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your interest in the issue. FYI, pursuant to WP:VANDALISM, "Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially. (Italics added) For any possible violation, this means we have to get into the poster's mind a bit in order to tell if their posts are (A) legitimate external link(s) or (B) external link spam vandalism. How do we gain such insight? That's simple.... you look at their track record. In this case,
Clearly, these posts were "mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially". Therefore, they are not just external links but external link spam, which is defined as a form of WP:VANDALISM. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Probable sock is editing right now. See this NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 06:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Yet another kalamazoo IP... 99.19.44.50 is online now, editing the same batch of climate articles. This time, for the most part they are just making wikilinks and external links out of existing article text but are not editing that text. I find this less annoying than the link spam, except for the (suspected) block evasion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a discussion about this AfD somewhere? She is listed in the Norton/Grove encyclopedia, which is sufficient evidence of notability. Pkeets ( talk) 14:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Is the current version similar to the many versions that have previously been speedy deleted? Being a lowly editor, I'm not privy to prior versions. I don't have a horse in this race, I just have it in my watch list from tagging a long time ago on new page watch. It has been speedy deleted 4 times, however, so I thought it was worth looking at. Not sure if it should have been speedied or AFDed before, I thought it was always borderline on notability, but not as strongly as previous admins who speedied it. Anyway, a fresh set of eyes on it may be warranted. Dennis Brown ( talk) 23:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted a previously posted message. I had sent this message to you and another administrator Jayjg ( talk), who is now helping me with my issue. Thanks, Jones ( talk) 05:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! We had a lenghty discussion (maybe you know abt it) for Indic scripts and IPA related to Indian articles here. The result was to include IPA for all biographical articles so that non-Indians can read the name. It took me a long time to write that cluster of words. Can you please try reading [dʒɡdʒiːt̪ sɪnɡʱ] as per Wikipedia:IPA for Hindi and Urdu and see if it really helps? And i doubt anyone would ever find any source for this. Editors would just have to add it as per their interpretation and incase of dispute, discuss it. - Animeshkulkarni ( talk) 14:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello James... I am not to sure how this wikipedia thing works... I am trying to make a page for an organization that really helped my father out while he was suffering from post tramatic stress... I tried mimicing the page of the heart and stress foundation but even tho the content is extremely similar you guys keep saying i am trying to promote this organization. I just think this organization deserves recognization within in the enclcyopedic world. PLease let me know what i can do to make this page work..
thank you so much
( Kelsey pitt ( talk) 16:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Kelsey Pitt)
Thank you very much James! I have alot of information about PTSD and this foundation. I am just not sure how to present it without seeming like I am working for the company or anything like that. Any advice you can give me to work on it would be great!!
( Kelsey pitt ( talk) 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Kelsey Pitt)
Hi James... Me again.. Can u have a look at my page to see if it is getting any better.. I am trying to reference sources and stuff but before iw aste anymore time i want to be assured im heading in the right direction....
( Kelsey pitt ( talk) 17:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Kelsey Pitt)
PS!! i just read your message fully and i think you may be right... the slow steady pace may be better for me... if this doesnt work this time around i am just going to start the old fashion way and work my way up. :)Thank you for all your help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelsey pitt ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello JameBWatson want to help me create a bot can.-- BrunoHe ( talk) 17:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Jones ( talk) 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
hi i was wondering why the page KuzzNshazziie was closed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzznshazziie , how do is not indicate the significance of the subject? thanks! ( 92.21.78.214 ( talk) 13:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC))
The website is recognized by wikipedia as CC http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Indianetzone Including http://www.4to40.com/history/index.asp?p=Gupta_Period_Early_Fourth_to_Mid-Eighth_Centuary_A.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi James; there's an Articles for Creation submission in which I think addressed the issues in the AfD debate. However, it appears that you have create-protected the page. If you think the submission is o.k. for article space, could you please release the protection? Thanks and regards, Bryce ( talk | contribs) 02:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Why was the Sensory, Inc entry deleted? What specifically is promotional or advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavius SV ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
So My computer has been laggy and I thought it was just me being weird but then I started seeing all these links in "my computer so I followed them .... But I deduced was a project to profile people based on there web history etc... And as i dug a little deeper into the 12 internet connections in my window list .. I only have one... I was brought to Wikipedia... I'm sorry for all the trouble I caused ... but some of you's should be the sorry ones ... I was only tryin to figure out what was goin on and I was bein threatened " I am grateful for what AMA has done for me, can I help?
You can make a donation to Wikimedia or volunteer in some fashion that helps the Wikipedian
community. There are many ways to get involved; you might even want to start your own
voluntary association in Wikipedia around some issue or concern that you have. We are a
virtual community, anything is possible, just remember "If you do not want your writing to
be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it."4:45 PM 2/5/2012" This is completely un American You's should be ashamed ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.169.27 ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 February 2012
I greatly appreciate your prompt action against the aggressive IP user 118.127.68.110. Cheers, Bjenks ( talk) 00:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Calabe 1992 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Calabe 1992 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I am the subject of scrutiny. Give me the chance and I will amend for my past mistakes. Unlike others, i will own up to my past sins. Because I care. Cigaro Pizarro ( talk) 16:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind undoing the removal of this category from all articles you removed it from please? Although this particular category was created by a banned user, was it really doing any harm to leave it alone? You could have deleted the category and then re-created it yourself if you felt that strongly about it, but deleting the category and then removing it from all articles was, albeit unintentionally, disruptive. The "Maritime incidents in (year)" categories are well established as part of WP:SHIPS categorisation. Mjroots ( talk) 16:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Said good. FPAS is idiot comparing to you. Cheers. 79.191.251.232 ( talk) 09:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you assist me with another page move, please? Thomas Cope (1827-1884) needs to be moved to Thomas Cope now that I have correctly named the latter as Thomas Cope (disambiguation). - Sitush ( talk) 12:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
For trying to make Wikipedia a better place through the acts of banning and cleaning up Wikipedia. I am a new user here attempting to make a difference and it is people like you who make my life easier. Thanks again, and have a nice day. TheSandwhichWriter ( talk) 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Watson,
I am Ferdinand Alido, a Director of Elizabeth Seton School, Philippines. I am writing to you because it seems you have deleted the article about our school. I have corresponded with Ms. Sarah Ewart regarding this and she mentioned that the deletion was requested by the author, apparently a student. She also mentioned that the article was only edited once by the same author. I cannot agree to this because I myself edited some details of the article.
Wikipedia discourages people who have associations to the topic from contributing which leads me here. We would like to request the article to be uploaded again, if possible. In case this request is not possible, I am requesting permission to author a new article. As a professional educator myself, I am bound to follow your guidelines on encyclopedic writing using a neutral tone. I will also provide sufficient verifiable sources which should fit with Wikipedia standards. I understand that Wikipedia discourages this but please understand that we cannot expect an outsider to know more about our organization.
Hoping for your kindest considerations.
Thank you.
Ferdinand Alido Director - Finance Elizabeth Seton School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdalido ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, please don't bother with childish games. Thank you. -- Brutus Brummfuß ( talk) 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello "James",
I have looked thorugh the relevent dispute resolution process so this is my first attempt to contact you before I proceed further. As recommeded I will take your edit as a resonably good hearted intention, however if you continue to remove my edit, whereby all I am doing is siting a known and relevent method for said subject and also backing it up with a reference/s, then I will continue my resolution process and deem your editing as malicious and subordinate when I inform Wikipedia admin (or whoever may be concerned) of the intended abuse of your role.
There was no advertisement in what I said, before you edit my edits again, read the references and prove me wrong by way of a polite discussion.
I am lead to believe you know very little on this subject by way of how you are acting, yet you are ok to leave in subjects and references to said page in relation to "exercises" whom have NO scientific proof or basis, this speaks volumes and I would love for you to be able to change my mind, after all, I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Sincerely,
Dr Mothvam on behalf of Andromedical S.L - Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Mothvam ( talk • contribs) 09:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Shall I take it as though my first attempt at communicating with you resulted in an all but a self opinionated response on behalf of the "Admin" that decided to remove relevant and substantiated information ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Mothvam ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 February 2012
Hi... I just reverted the addition of malicious content. Normally just a revert and warning, but this one contained a phone number and name and I'd like to get it redacted. What's the best route to take to get that done? Here's the diff Thanks! Wikipelli Talk 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
... for all your efforts on WP. Glrx ( talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Tom's page happens to be on my watchlist, so I saw your comment. The mistake is not his. He reported ip 64.238.233.58 [4]. 218.. was reported by User:Dcshank [5]. Paul B ( talk) 20:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I didn't report that one; I reported the one you blocked. And thanks for taking care of it. I'm pretty sure it's from a computer in a middle school library. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
:- ) DCS 20:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Legal threat at my talk page. Abhijay ( ☎ Talk) ( ✐ Deeds) 08:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
An anon user keeps making changes to the article that I feel drastically change the scope. He adds "and related citrus flavorings" or previously "and other citrus products with bergamottin such as Earl Grey Tea" to the article, essentially saying that bergamottin is the only thing that causes the potential reactions with drugs and grapefruit juice. Since this wasn't added before, I keep trying to convince him that a citation IS required, as you now basically changing the article from saying "Grapefruit juice can cause interactions with drugs" to "anything with bergamottin, including Earl Grey tea, can cause reactions with drugs." There is another chemically similar drug, 6’,7’-dihydroxybergamottin, which together cause the "grapefruit effect", not just the one, but regardless, a change like this *must* have a citation to stay, should it not? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Again, my concern isn't the accuracy, it is that making such a large claim requires citation. We have been reverting back and forth for a while, I keep asking him to provide a cite, he basically says I have to provide a cite to prove him wrong (dont get me started...). His faith is good, but his methods aren't. Any help or input would be swell. Dennis Brown ( talk) 21:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)