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 70 | ← | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | → | Archive 80 |
About a year ago you blocked diff an editor named Professorreason, who was Robert Stewart (saxophonist) and 'editing' the article that is about him. There may have been one or more IPs blocked at the same time. He's now back diff. As a non-admin, I'd prefer not to get involved in all of this with him again (his COI, abuse, self-promotion, lack of understanding of sourcing requirements, etc etc), all of which is shown in Talk:Robert Stewart (saxophonist)/Archive 1 and the article edit history. Is it definitely the same person? All of the previous edits by the IP listed here were to add info about... Robert Stewart. Normally with an edit like the "he's now back" one I linked to, I'd just revert, but this could be a more complex situation, so I'll follow the course of action that you or other admins recommend. EddieHugh ( talk) 00:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stewart_(saxophonist)
Robert Stewart is going "public" (every known news organization) with this biased organization's purposeful attempt to downplay his contribution to the jazz idiom. Your group has "citation bombed" the page simply for "spite." New upload gives some 80 citations & the kids there simply erase them, and revert back to the citation bombed page; not even reviewing the information. Suing isn't worth the time, but he will not rest until justice is served. He will send a video deposition to news outlets. People need to know how Muslim musicians are treated by Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B05D:1896:1A18:7051:C91F:4009 ( talk) 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi James. You might want to have a look at this one, whose only intent seems to be to disrupt Wikipedia: User contributions: 92.68.248.155, User talk:92.68.248.155. Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 12:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
James, I have forgotten my wikipedia password. However, I am still logged in on my mobile and so I am asking you this question with the same account here. Please tell me how to add my email address to my existing Wikipedia account so as to recover my password. Thank you!- Karumari ( talk) 10:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It is asking for my old password, so I will ask at the helpdesk!- Karumari ( talk) 11:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Draft:3DVHS the article in its current stage has already been rejected several times and i have already been reminded several times of Wiki policy and guidelines as its author. I don't understand the comment you left most recently; all subject matter written in the article is empirically, physically true. Text and style guidelines aside, I'm already seeking 3rd party intervention to improve notability and reliability measures. Please clarify the comment. Reminder- 1. Direct rudeness ... (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap") Adames1983 ( talk) 14:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
--- no problems James, sorry but that snip-snip text coming out there, give me sometime to legitimize this article thanks. Adames1983 ( talk) 15:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, JamesBWatson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi James, Hope you are doing well! WECCE is the first article I am publishing and I may need help. I add 2 more references that I hope can help.
WECCE is an organization I worked with in Tanzania.
I appreciate your help, Kind regards Paulo Pjaoliveira ( talk) 20:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks awfully like someone at Fox News has been whitewashing. What do you think, James? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=William_H._McRaven&curid=18262913&action=history – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 17:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Giving you a heads-up regarding this new IP editor who isn't fitting in. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 16:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Giving you a heads-up regarding this IP, which has a history of making questionable edits then almost immediately reverting said edits. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Vijay(actor) article Naan sigappu manithan (1985) mention the year like this in the child artist section-- Hjkl12345 ( talk) 14:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi JamesB,
I am a bit concerned and puzzled by your comment on my talk page regarding conflict of interest. I have had no affiliation or connection with the companies for whom I have created or edited pages. I always post on the talk page when I have been paid to create or edit pages, and also add them to the lists on my own page. Can you help me by clarifying why you believe that I have a conflict of interest? Thanks for your help and insights. Tlvernon ( talk) 23:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Seems someone at UCB has a beef regarding Aleksandr Dugin; check out edits from 169.229.11.164, 169.229.202.229, and 128.32.241.126. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 20:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
http://www.forbesindia.com/lists/2018-celebrity-100/1735/3 he is ranked 26 in 2018 Vijay(actor) upgrade thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12qwertyui ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Just curious why you would change the username of an indef blocked user? It seems to muddy things if anything. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 01:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Vijay(actor) is a dual citizen married to a britisher and son also british citizen and he has won a international award so obviously he is an indian international actor can you make this change in the artcle thanks-- Hjkl12345 ( talk) 12:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC) https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/indian-cinema/vijay-wins-best-international-actor-award-for-mersal
This article is recreated again, Will you please check is this the same you deletd Radha Krishn (2018 TV series) or some other topic? Regards SitaraShah ( talk) 21:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
:@
Gibl kolkata:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2019! | |
Hi JBW, Sending you a warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019 and may this new year bring you joy and laughter. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hi there. I know its been a little over a year, but I was wondering if you happen to remember why you posted the conflict of interest warning on Kuda188's talk page in September of 2017? In case your wondering its Revision as of 12:12, 5 September 2017 (edit) (undo). I ask because he subsequently deleted the warning, along with warnings by other people about it by other people, including myself and it seems like he is still editing pages for the same company in the same ways that come off as advertisements. Also, I did an internet search for his screen name and there where more then a few links to social media accounts that he maintains full of stuff related to Bethel Music. Therefore, I think there is clearly a conflict of interest going on there that should be dealt with. The fact that he deletes questions about it instead of just saying he doesn't is a red flag also. I'm interested to know what your thoughts on it are or if you think further action should be taken in light of his editing behavior not changing since then. Thanks -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Christmas! | ||
Hello JamesBWatson, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 01:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
we wait for your position for the enclosed as you seem to be obsessively mamanging there on this web site we consult and request your feed back more references from all over the world for this company now valued at 4 billion dollars .
-- Sunlinestar ( talk) 11:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
appologies nothing personal I am to busy to look after you and read above
please edit and progress the articles based on the references
see you in 7 weeks no problem at all
i politely send you 55 references for an article.,
initially you said there is no reference and you deleted all the previous references
now we bring you again the 55 references up to wikipedia its not a big deal
dont have time to argue with you
please let me know if the references are good for an article otherwise
we forget about it no problem at all . wikipedia is no big deal. lots of junck
we wanted to help wikipedia.
as you dont seem to understand lets make it simple please respon point by point
1) did you review the 55 references the only thing that matters to progress
2) do you want to do an article about the bankset based on the references
3) do you want TO bring a text for this product i am interested in
WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT DO YOU WANT ? YOU ARE A MATH TEACHER ?????
PLEASE RESPOND AFTER EACH POINT ABOVE 123 WITH A SHORT RESPONSE 5 WORDS MAX
cheers -- Sunlinestar ( talk) 19:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
You might want to revoke their talk page access. — Rain Fall 06:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
JBW, once again I'm concerned with Legacypac's incivility directed towards me. The editor's recent talk page comments are, in my view, totally uncalled for. This is more of the same bad faith, stooge of the NRA type stuff. In particular I'm thinking of these edits [ [1]], [ [2]], [ [3]], [ [4]]. It's not like I'm the only one complaining. LP was just infront of an ANI a few weeks back for civility issues. I'm ok with disagreements but not the constant accusations and personal attacks. Thanks for any suggestions Springee ( talk) 00:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
JBW, I also think LP's attempt to campaign for sanctions against me is very much a CIVIL issue [ [5]]. Springee ( talk) 19:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear James, I'm writing to you in the name of my father (67 years old, he is new to Wikipedia). He mistakenly used his sandbox page to create an article which does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines. The contents of the page are very important to him and he had been working on it for a long time (he is currently hospitalized and it is his only hobby). I understand why you deleted the page, but ask you to please provide him with the last content of the page so that he can back it up and use it somewhere else. I can guarantee that he won't reuse the sandbox page in this way. The page URL is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Thezamirs/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1 Thank you Thezamirs ( talk) 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you please visit my talk page, want to ask you something. Eatcha ( talk) 13:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
And Happy Christmas Eatcha ( talk) 13:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Giving you a heads-up regarding this newly registered editor. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Peggyterry – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 15:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, James, what do you think of this? – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 05:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Few days ago you blocked @Weathereditor44 because he was a sock of weathereditor ( /info/en/?search=User:Weathereditor) with dozens of confirmed clones.
He is back under the name of @Weathereditor46 /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Weathereditor46
Can you ban this guy's IP too? He is going way too far, his number of clones is approaching 100. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.224.18 ( talk) 18:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I hope you enjoy it! Foxnpichu ( talk) 18:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, You have just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Job ticket as Delete, despite both the Nom Doric Loon and the only other participant (me) in the AfD suggesting a disambiguation page, saying "but I don't see any justification for that, as the term is not mentioned in either of the suggested target articles (except in one case as a redirect to this article) and in any case is not in common use in English in either meaning." There is abundant evidence that the term is in common use in British, Australian and US English (see for example the freely available digitised Australian newspapers, etc, on Trove [6]). The Work order article was incorrectly linked to this now deleted article. A disambiguation page could have links to the Work order article and the Season ticket article, with a brief explanation that it is an English term used with that sense only in German. There is also another meaning, synonymous with Meal ticket, and a disambiguation page could have a link to the Wiktionary entry for that. Please could you reopen this AfD and undelete the page, so that the Nom and I have access to the article in order to create the disambiguation page? RebeccaGreen ( talk) 00:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, The result was certainly delete. As I was the only one who supported keeping the article, when you said "Much of what is said by the one editor to support keeping has little connection with policies or guidelines" it obviously refers to me. I always attempt to apply policies and guidelines, in this case WP:POLOUTCOMES, which I clearly stated. Unfortunately, I copied the text of that from the previous AfD, and did not notice that Wikipedia has changed the wording since that AfD. I don't know why you note that with interest - clearly I should check the wording of policies and guidelines every time, in case changes have been made, but I did not intentionally either change the wording or choose the older wording over the new one. I do not know why you felt it necessary to say any of this, nor why you feel that votes that show no attempt at all to do WP:BEFORE are in line with policies and guidelines, whereas I attempted to show that it WP:HASREFS. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 11:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. All major removal of content in the past month here has got to be from the same person. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 16:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
Here. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I have forwarded the email you sent me to the arbitration committee for review, at their request. GoldenRing ( talk) 09:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the date vandalising anon is back - 2001:e68:60ee:b401:1dfb:6a47:26f0:3c0f. - Sitush ( talk) 12:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi James, please have a look at this one: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/One_dead_Coke_sucker
I don't want to have to work my way through all his nonsense... the user account has been set up for complete vandalism. Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 13:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
No need now... someone has just jumped on him. Acabashi ( talk) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
On December 6 2018, you levied a baseless accusation against an account of being my sock puppet. Such baseless accusations are against wikipedia policy. If such an egregious violation happens again, I will report you for harassment. -- PaulGosar ( talk) 00:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello James,
I had created a page with the name of SKIDOS on 30th July, which got deleted by you. I would request you to guide me further as i would like to recreate another page for this topic. I have got only 1 recommendation: To link the reference link with the same content. Can I recreate the page with the mentioned changes?
I am waiting for your guidance
Thanks
-- Adi skidos ( talk) 07:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi James, It's been awhile! At Nuclear power I may have got close or crossed 3RR recently. I was already close to the line and talk page discussion asked me to restore some of my work on citaitons, so I did that, and then I quit editing the page for a spell. Meanwhile, another editor continues their barrage. Please take a peek, and if you agree, could you please drop a cautionary note on BL's user talk ? Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I ask combat vandalism of user TJRS on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Theresa_May&action=history (vandalism against relevant information in personal life (May loves different music). Thank you! Yellow Man 1000 ( talk) 13:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Giving you a heads-up about this and this. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 23:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
IP insists upon having a blank talk page. Not even templates allowed. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
You deleted an article on a D.W. Waterson, as A7. Could you look at it, and deterine whether it covers the same individual as D. W. Waterson?
If so, could you merge the histories, and that of the talk pages?
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 12:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi James, Per RevDel reason 2 S(smears BLP etc) please redact edit sum in this diff as it smears climate scientists in general impugning them of at least unethical if not criminal conduct. Thanks for thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
[7] [8] I've already reverted the second given the unreliability of the source. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 22:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
Hi JBW. A couple of months ago, you warned Karumari about ARBIPA discretionary sanctions, and the consequences of advocating a certain POV. Their latest edits make me believe a topic-ban is now necessary; see this, this, this and this. I'm involved on those pages, and so cannot impose a sanction; would you be willing to take a look? Regards, Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
A Kenyan IP calling Trump "our President"? – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 16:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I have appealed my topic ban. Please see this: (Mobile link to appeal)- Karumari ( talk) 19:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
As you attended one of the previous two Manchester meetups and/or expressed an interest in being notified about future ones, this is a heads-up that I have started organising a meetup in Manchester on 9 June 2019 - details are at m:Meetup/Manchester/36. Please feel free to invite others with an interest in Wikimedia/Wikipedia to join us. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
There is an excessive editor called Musicfan122 who has completely made up climate normals for Dubai that are absolutely ridiculously wrong and reverted my fix even when I told the person that making up unverified numbers are wholly unacceptable. For example, Abu Dhabi at a similar elevation and nearby has 24/13 normals for January, while this person claims Dubai has "19.7/11.0" in spite of having a largely identical climate to Abu Dhabi. I simply restored the sourced weatherbox that has always been the case for the Dubai, used since way back (I can date it back to 2012-13), which someone else also had done prior to me. Then this Musicfan122 user immediately eliminated my restoration in order to put the absolutely erroneous numbers up once more. This person has completely hijacked Dubai's article so far this year, making hundreds of edits going by the revision history ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dubai&offset=&limit=250&action=history). It is in my opinion high time to sanction this vandal before the Dubai article becomes something akin to their personal blog or something... Us serious weather editors can not be everywhere simultaneously so it is important to get help in that regard. I would be very thankful if I could get your help in doing something about this. Best wishes and cheers// Lommaren ( talk) 14:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
[9] [10] [11] – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 20:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. I would report this to the noticeboard but I'm at work and don't have time to find the earliest good version. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
JBW, I don't know what to do about this but I figured I would at least post it here so I can find it later. ARE related to firearms. LP chimes in [ [12]]. I replied to LP's accusations. The reply was a posting on my talk page accusing me of lying. LP has yet to back the accusation. Anyway, my concern is this is yet another example of LP throwing out accusations of bad faith and claims of COI without any substance. [ [13]] When is enough enough? Thanks. Springee ( talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mohammad Ali Taheri. 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. 49.198.21.145 ( talk) 21:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The article in question is The Myth of the Negro Past. There are more than enough reliable sources to warrant its existence (see Google books here and Google scholar here). Thank you. Mitchumch ( talk) 10:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you blocked IPs: [14] [15] [16] [17] per “Block evasion by a long-blocked editor.” There’s a recent edit here [18] made by an IP which geo-locates to the same location as the blocked IPs and appears to be from the user [19]. The same interest in the Generation-related articles, same editing patterns, same spelling and grammar, and same type of agenda editing made me suspicious that these are all made by the same user User:Aboutbo2000. The contributions from the editor and the IPs show that the editor is not here to collaborate with other users and improve the articles, but to push their POV against reliable source by trimming down or removing reliable sources, misrepresenting what the sources state, adding unreliable sources that match their POV, and reverting changes that they disagree with. Could you look into this please? Thanks for your time, Someone963852 ( talk) 04:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Since you are a third-party, uninvolved administrator, could I request your thoughts on an issue that has been going on for a long time now regarding a certain editor? There is currently a discussion going on at the Millennials talk page Talk:Millennials#Date_Range_Sources regarding the reliability and accuracy of the sources in the ‘Date and age range definitions’ section. The current article states that the “United States Census Bureau defines the millennial generation as those born from 1982–2000,” but as stated by the topic starter, this is inaccurate and untrue. The editor provided two sources, including one from the official 2017 US Census Bureau [20], which states differently and proposes that the current source used in the article be updated.
But as expected, User:DynaGirl who thinks they own the generation-related articles and has misrepresented and misled sources in the past to push their non-neutral POV replied by ignoring the discussion topic at hand and misrepresents the RfC conclusion [21] (the RfC was about changing the lead of the Millennials article and nothing about the reliability of sources or the current discussion at hand) in an attempt to stifle the discussion because updating the sources wouldn't match their non-neutral POV.
I learned from this comment [22] that the User:DynaGirl’s long-term, problematic and disruptive behavior of editing fits exactly into what is called Civil POV Pushing.
Locality - They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme. The user mainly edits the generation-related articles, such as Xennials, Millennials, Generation Z, Generation X, Baby Boomers, the Generations sidebar, etc and stated that they have a specific interest in the generation-related articles [23]. They've formed their own opinions and conclusions on what the generation-related articles should be, so they try to push their POV onto the articles regardless of collaboration or what reliable sources have to say.
Neutrality - They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV The user trimmed down the Pew source [24] and added a "disclaimer" at the end of it despite objections on the talk page because they personally disagreed with the Pew's date ranges. The user tried to disclaim the main Pew source on a different article [25] by misrepresenting a different source [26]. The user added “An earlier 2014 publication from Pew Research described the cohort as born after the year 2000” after the main Pew source using [27] as a reference. But the reference used is not the views of Pew nor is it a report by Pew (which the changes inaccurately implies and misleads the reader to thinking it is); it’s a book interview with Paul Taylor, the author of the book, and the author's views on the date ranges. The user is misrepresenting sources under the guise of "tweaking" to mislead readers and push their POV. give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. The user stated in a discussion that the outdated Neil and Howe Strauss source “stands the test of time” and gives undue weight to it just because the source matches their POV and uses it to disregard the other more reliable, relevant and up-to-date sources which disagree with the date ranges. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in." The user tried to add [28] sources that closely match and support their POV, even though those sources are not defining or researching the Millennial date ranges in any way but uses them for categorical purposes. Even the Chamber of Commerce source that the user added [29] states that "Sources, though, are inconsistent, with as many as 21 different birth spans referenced." When they are unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research. The user is accusing [30] another editor of original research because they personally disagree with it.
Editing They revert war over such edits. The user has edit warred on generation-related articles [31] [32] and was giving a warning that they will be blocked by an administrator [33]. They may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets. [34] Interaction with the blocked IP who shares the same POV as the user.
Discussions They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view. Looking through the talk pages and archives of the Millennials [35], Generation Z [36], Xennials [37], and other generation related talk pages, if any discussion crops up that the user disagrees with, they'll be there to push their POV until the conclusion ends in their favor or until the other editors eventually relent and leave. There is absolutely no collaboration taking place. The most recent example here [38] where the user opposed the article move [39] by lying and claiming that "it seems at odds with multiple discussions and concerns raised on the above talk page." But looking through the Talk:The_Greatest_Generation and Talk:G.I._Generation and its archive, the only one discussion about the move was [40] which was started by the same user and which the user moved the page against objections from another editor. Here is an example [41] of an editor pointing out the user’s disruptive behavior on a different article. They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors. The most recent one was [42] [43] and I wouldn't be surprised if the user requested an RfC for the current issue or any other new issue that crops up that disagrees with their personal opinions. They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions. An editor pointed out that the user has misrepresented them and an administrator [44].
Sources They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature. The fact that the user is opposed to the recent discussion [45] on making sure that the sources in the article are accurate and reliable says a lot about the user, their uncollaborative nature, and their attempts to make the article fit their POV. An editor provided sources for their proposed changes [46], but the user accused them of original research or synthesis [47] because they personally disagree with the changes.
These are just some few examples that I can remember off the top of my head. Is there anything that can be done about User:DynaGirl and their long-term pattern of problematic and disruptive behavior in the form of Civil POV Pushing? Could you give me your thoughts please? It seems like any edits or changes to the generation-related articles will have to go through that user's approval first or the changes will be reverted then discussed extensively on the talk page to meet that user's POV before any changes can be made.
Thank you for your time and for reading this, Someone963852 ( talk) 03:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Just letting you know that The Big Year and other pages have been victims of an IP hopping vandal (66.41.0.0/16 range) since at least September. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 17:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
I confess, I am a master sock, I started off on this account then ended up getting block, so I created many accounts. Some other accounts I have created included FetchFan21, 1mikie19, MikeySalinas17, BeeBliss16 and Bigteddy1. Currently I own CaptainDanger25 where I set up many accounts to get blocked that included WP Editor 2012 and many other accounts that were part of the May 2018 case. Like some of my other accounts I reported accounts to chase admins using CaptainDanger25. I even threw off admins to let them believe Bigteddy1 was being attacked when it was just me along.
I have many ip's to chase admins away. I have even submitted socks cases wait other simulation 12 socks
Ip's include
Plus many more 174.255.7.252 ( talk) 23:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello James. Thankyou for looking into my article but James I think you mistook the content of it. IT's purely not for advertising or a promotion of any product or service. As i read the terms of wikipedia. i created that article since it has to be on wikipedia since its major for history of srilanka. As thr oldest and the largest production company of srilanka. That is some information that has to be here. Please look into my matter and consider. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshen Ratnaraja ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello JamesBWatson,
I'm about to create an article 1949-50 Macedonian Republic league, but I have noticed that you moved or deleted a page with the same name back in 2014 and you have left a notice reg creating a new page, I'm not sure what content you have moved or deleted, but I want to create a page same as 1954-55 Macedonian Republic League which I did it few hours ago, will that be sufficient enough? Kind Regards, F00700I ( talk) 12:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. Thanks for the edit Buffs ( talk) 15:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Since you’re familiar with the sockpuppetry that has happened over on the Generation related articles (most recently with User:Aboutbo2000), could you let me know if I’m not alone in being suspicious of a "new" user that has recently popped up?
There’s a "new" editor ( User:Carfree82) editing on Generation related articles that I’m suspecting is a sock… It just seems a bit suspicious to me that User:Carfree82 was created two months ago, made minor edits on a few random articles, then made this edit: [53] and exactly 2 minutes later, went on a different Generation related article’s talk page [54], being their first time editing on an article’s talk page and attempting to get editors blocked.
User:Carfree82 then made random small edits to random articles possibly to not make sockpuppetry obvious, then made a talk page comment 13 minutes later on a different Generation related article [55] stating almost the exact same thing as another user [56], trying to use the RfC outcome to shut down discussion about changing the lead or ranges. It also seems suspicious that this editor of two months knows what an “RfC” is and that they went back to the archives to dig it up.
Let me know if I’m not the only one that’s a bit suspicious about this possible sockpuppetry... Thanks, Someone963852 ( talk) 22:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I am from India and found the article page through Google only to see that it was deleted and read the page for why it was deleted.
I think this deletion was political vandalism. Vidyut Kale is a public figure on digital rights in India and has participated in internet rights movements in the country. She is something of a lone wolf and polymath supporting many campaigns in public interest, but there won't be significant organization related coverage of her because she is careful to stay independent of organizations and political parties. Being a woman, and opposing ruling party that controls most media, you will not find coverage for activists opposing government.
She opposes the ruling BJP in India with a notorious IT cell and is the subject of several targeted attacks from them. They have organized workers on all social media as well as Wikipedia. Some of the delete recommendations are by users whose history reveals edits of interest to the ruling party.
Some of the analysis of references is also not correct. You can verify for yourself.
For example, this article, that is analyzed as only mentioning her is interviewing her as among the early founders of the group intending to form a Pirate Party in India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Activists-bemoan-absence-of-active-Pirate-Party-in-India/articleshow/34542968.cms
This article is analyzed as her being mentioned in a "non-substantive, transitory sense" while discussing laws used for censorship in India. This is not correct, her case is being analyzed because she got defamation notices due to an expose of a scam. https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/VViKHUnyEZzuxOSQumBhEL/Free-Speech--Virtual-empowerment.html Another user calls it an advocacy piece because its sources include three major digital rights related organizations in India!
This article in an award winning publication with its own Wikipedia page (as pointed out by another user) is called an unreliable source in the analysis https://www.thefridaytimes.com/peace-after-pathankot/ what is important here is that this is a Pakistani newspaper quoting her on a subject of tension between India and Pakistan.
I contacted her before messaging and she is not interested in pursuing this, but as administrator, you should care that Wikipedia is being used to refuse credibility to dissenters by the fascist party in rule.
~ Preethi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.197.197 ( talk) 21:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Looks like all edits from IPs starting with 73. are acting on behalf of 173.61.138.18, which has been blocked until 20 June. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 21:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi James, Zebodee Fielder, set up today, appears likely to be opened by an IP specifically for disruption... see link where I have detailed this. The IP and Zebodee Fielder, and Mhe123456 who has also disrupted Bexhill High earlier this year, might of course be doing this from the school. The IP centres on East Sussex County Council in Eastbourne, next door to Bexhill, so the school's IPs could well come under the council. There may be a case for stamping on this before it becomes a more serious problem. Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 10:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Drawing your attention to the discussion on the AFD closure of Vidyut Kale at deletion review. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hey! I saw that you deleted a page I created. Yes, this page was indeed deleted in past as well and I had carefully read the deletion discussion and researched on subject. After that, I saw that there were many relevant references which were not present when the page was created and deleted in past. I used those references and created the page again. I feel that you didn't notice that the page was created absolutely fresh with all relevant citations. I don't remember if we have a rule where a page that was deleted in past can not be created again. I think I have created one or two and they were okay. I read G4,
"It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies,"
The reason for deletion were no sources and relevant citations which is no longer applicable. Hence, I think, G4 should not apply. Would it be possible for you to check the new page that I had created and see the difference from the previously deleted draft? I am sure you will see why I thought that the page should be created. Thanks for your time!
Alivenkicking ( talk) 16:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Whenever you have time, you should look into 273 & 283. There might be more. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Abbyjadali ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)== Deletion of MONQ Aromatherapy ==
Hello! I saw that you deleted a page that I created about MONQ Aromatherapy portable diffusers. I can understand why it was deleted, it did seem a little like an ad, and I didn't realize that I couldn't use the companies website as a source. I was wondering if I could re-create this page to make it much more neutral to just talk about the company and their mission? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbyjadali ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Could you please tell me why you are remove our texts from talk page!? How can we open conversation then!? How we can contact and request! This is unbelievable, please bring back changes.
Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Yusuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.126.244.245 ( talk) 15:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Mind stopping by here when you get a chance? There are no reliable English references, only the likes of Facebook and YouTube, simply because the person in question isn't known by other names in English. There are, however, plenty of reliable references in Persian but the pusher dismisses those as "fake". – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 21:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Assuming no one else as requested this and with reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidyut Kale and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 3 where I said I might work on this if no one else would. I make the WP:BOLD move and request WP:REFUND of Vidyut Kale + talk page to my userspace. The final two edits (excluding any added by the temp undelete) and will to be reverted as a COI edit however those version indicate possible errors corrections particularly around the so I would like to consider them. My impression is I would like to rework most of the article from scratch so I will probably revert to near original contest, consolidate and examine references on a workpage and slowly build from there. It's a technique I've used before on WP:RESCUEs but I don't normally if ever to live bios. The result may or may not be suitable for mainspace ... it may end up being not able to progress beyond draft. Apart from an initial tear apart work on this may progress slowly. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
This looks like a violation of WP:SOAP to me. What do you think, James? – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 16:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Please don't make WP policies more readable/understandable. It's disruptive!-- Bbb23 ( talk) 11:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting out my editing block! -- Redlentil ( talk) 11:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
You might like to know there is a partial duplicate in this contribution. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, colleague. Can you look on Talk:Qizilbash#Qizilbash Turcoman. Two years ago there was a discussion with me involved. Several other involved users put forward their arguments, but then I left the English Wikipedia for a long time. Now, I have returned and put forward (or rather reinstated my older ones) my arguments, and these are without any answer for several weeks. What should be done, according to the protocol of mediation. Can I already call for 3O or what? John Francis Templeson ( talk) 06:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi JamesBWatson,
I have a problem :-( Some Wikipedian reverted my 7 consecutive edits, then restored only one. These edits took me a lot of time and effort. Were they all wrong? Really? Could you please take a look at them? Vikom talk 03:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I had a good laugh reading your revelation, I'll admit not having pressed the diff link but it's almost as if the quote has come full circle. Regardless of the thread or the issue at hand, I do agree with the statement. It is how it is. -- qedk ( t 桜 c) 07:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I just read an old discussion, where you wrote "However ... Is the film notable?"
Good question, so I looked it up on imdb. The film earned over a million bucks, on its opening weekend. So, not a blockbuster, but a very substantial return, for a documentary. So, is that enough to satisfy your notability concern? Geo Swan ( talk) 18:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Very unfair action, equate me with a sock puppet, so as to avoid the discussion. Now that my previous IP was blocked, I was forced to sign up. My criticism was justified. I hope you think again and open the discussion. The other user is constantly looking for excuses to avoid criticism. I hope you check it again. [58] Megekono ( talk) 22:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting out the Smithies problem. Yes, the rest of us are singularly short of intelligence. I'll try to get a brain transplant some time. Bmcln1 ( talk) 08:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, you just deleted my sandbos for advertising, which I understand. I have no intention of publishing the article (I apologize if I did by submitting what I did) and I'm only writing it because writing a basic page on wikipedia is a requirement for one of my courses. Is there any way you could undo the delete, if only for long enough for me to get what I wrote up back?
Hey, JamesB,
I deleted this draft and was looking at the log history and its recent history of deletion and restoration. I was going to protect the page since it has been repeatedly recreated by paid editors but since you've restored this article (twice), I thought maybe a decent article was possible. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello User:JamesBWatson, you just deleted my Sandbox page. We are a group of master students at the University of Padova working on a Wikipedia project: [ [59]] Could you kindly inform me the exactly URL of the original webpage of the supposed copyviolation and please, re-check because we didn’t make any copyright violation. Could you please also check if the copyviolation was present in the article prior to our contribution. If it is possible, please, undelete our revision in the article [ [60]] We just put together some scientific facts of the topic and we didn’t advocate any opinion. Thank you in advance -- Anastadi ( talk) 09:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
user:JamesBWatson, Thank you for restoring my sandbox. Could it be possible to restore our changes on the article Cultural neuroscience as well? If not please give us an explanation. Thank you Anastadi ( talk) 09:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
[61] – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 02:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi James. This user appears only to have set up (in March 2011) a Wikipedia user page as vanity spam. He has contributed absolutely nothing to the project; his pictures from Wikimedia are pure selfies. Does this constitute any infringement of Wikipedia protocols? Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 11:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Springfield, Oregon, is evidently full of bored students. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 21:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I posted a link to the diffs at RFPP before realising they likely qualify for revdel and I should have asked for that first. Anyway, in between point A and point B, there was some stuff added which seems to cross the line of BLP. Would you please take a look? BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 19:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. I just happened to run across these from Italy:
151.68.0.0/16
151.36.0.0/16
151.38.0.0/16
151.18.0.0/16
151.82.0.0/16
151.34.0.0/16
– Skywatcher68 ( talk) 16:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi!
I've pinged you on the talk page of an article which you have discussed some details with me in the last year.
Not sure if you have received the notice, so I posted here again to bring it up.
If you have already noticed that and decide not to respond, then please excuse me for bothering you again in your talk page.
Best Regards
Tomskyhaha ( talk) 17:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I know you might think it is a joke, but it is not. It is a true and serious article about that theorie. I thought that a good place to begin with by letting people know about it would be Wikipedia. However, if after this, you still think it is inopportune, there is no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of the Universe 322 ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You have deleted my userpage while I was building, I used a template provided in the user page section called John and was busy deleting non relevant information. User:AdriaanBuys ( User talk:AdriaanBuys) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdriaanBuys ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Three articles that you deleted per G5 ( Washington nickel, States two thousand-dollar bill, and Roanoke Island, North Carolina half dollar) were previously deleted per the same criteria, but undeleted by User:Bbb23 as they were notable currency articles. Could you undelete them again? Also, is there any way to avoid this misunderstanding in the future? - ZLEA T\ C 16:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Guy, if there is some problem with me, then explain it, or just go and report it to any venue necessary. Don’t shadow me, disrupting my work. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I was fine with the article being redirected, but I would like to please have the markup restored as she is likely to be notable in the future. Just because one IP editor ignored the AfD result does not mean the article's history should be removed. Are you willing to restore, please? I've requested at Talk:Plastique Tiara and on my user talk page. I'm fine with the page protection as well. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:42, 29 May 2019 (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 70 | ← | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | → | Archive 80 |
About a year ago you blocked diff an editor named Professorreason, who was Robert Stewart (saxophonist) and 'editing' the article that is about him. There may have been one or more IPs blocked at the same time. He's now back diff. As a non-admin, I'd prefer not to get involved in all of this with him again (his COI, abuse, self-promotion, lack of understanding of sourcing requirements, etc etc), all of which is shown in Talk:Robert Stewart (saxophonist)/Archive 1 and the article edit history. Is it definitely the same person? All of the previous edits by the IP listed here were to add info about... Robert Stewart. Normally with an edit like the "he's now back" one I linked to, I'd just revert, but this could be a more complex situation, so I'll follow the course of action that you or other admins recommend. EddieHugh ( talk) 00:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stewart_(saxophonist)
Robert Stewart is going "public" (every known news organization) with this biased organization's purposeful attempt to downplay his contribution to the jazz idiom. Your group has "citation bombed" the page simply for "spite." New upload gives some 80 citations & the kids there simply erase them, and revert back to the citation bombed page; not even reviewing the information. Suing isn't worth the time, but he will not rest until justice is served. He will send a video deposition to news outlets. People need to know how Muslim musicians are treated by Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B05D:1896:1A18:7051:C91F:4009 ( talk) 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi James. You might want to have a look at this one, whose only intent seems to be to disrupt Wikipedia: User contributions: 92.68.248.155, User talk:92.68.248.155. Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 12:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
James, I have forgotten my wikipedia password. However, I am still logged in on my mobile and so I am asking you this question with the same account here. Please tell me how to add my email address to my existing Wikipedia account so as to recover my password. Thank you!- Karumari ( talk) 10:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It is asking for my old password, so I will ask at the helpdesk!- Karumari ( talk) 11:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Draft:3DVHS the article in its current stage has already been rejected several times and i have already been reminded several times of Wiki policy and guidelines as its author. I don't understand the comment you left most recently; all subject matter written in the article is empirically, physically true. Text and style guidelines aside, I'm already seeking 3rd party intervention to improve notability and reliability measures. Please clarify the comment. Reminder- 1. Direct rudeness ... (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap") Adames1983 ( talk) 14:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
--- no problems James, sorry but that snip-snip text coming out there, give me sometime to legitimize this article thanks. Adames1983 ( talk) 15:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, JamesBWatson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi James, Hope you are doing well! WECCE is the first article I am publishing and I may need help. I add 2 more references that I hope can help.
WECCE is an organization I worked with in Tanzania.
I appreciate your help, Kind regards Paulo Pjaoliveira ( talk) 20:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks awfully like someone at Fox News has been whitewashing. What do you think, James? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=William_H._McRaven&curid=18262913&action=history – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 17:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Giving you a heads-up regarding this new IP editor who isn't fitting in. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 16:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Giving you a heads-up regarding this IP, which has a history of making questionable edits then almost immediately reverting said edits. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Vijay(actor) article Naan sigappu manithan (1985) mention the year like this in the child artist section-- Hjkl12345 ( talk) 14:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi JamesB,
I am a bit concerned and puzzled by your comment on my talk page regarding conflict of interest. I have had no affiliation or connection with the companies for whom I have created or edited pages. I always post on the talk page when I have been paid to create or edit pages, and also add them to the lists on my own page. Can you help me by clarifying why you believe that I have a conflict of interest? Thanks for your help and insights. Tlvernon ( talk) 23:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Seems someone at UCB has a beef regarding Aleksandr Dugin; check out edits from 169.229.11.164, 169.229.202.229, and 128.32.241.126. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 20:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
http://www.forbesindia.com/lists/2018-celebrity-100/1735/3 he is ranked 26 in 2018 Vijay(actor) upgrade thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12qwertyui ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Just curious why you would change the username of an indef blocked user? It seems to muddy things if anything. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 01:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Vijay(actor) is a dual citizen married to a britisher and son also british citizen and he has won a international award so obviously he is an indian international actor can you make this change in the artcle thanks-- Hjkl12345 ( talk) 12:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC) https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/indian-cinema/vijay-wins-best-international-actor-award-for-mersal
This article is recreated again, Will you please check is this the same you deletd Radha Krishn (2018 TV series) or some other topic? Regards SitaraShah ( talk) 21:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
:@
Gibl kolkata:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2019! | |
Hi JBW, Sending you a warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019 and may this new year bring you joy and laughter. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hi there. I know its been a little over a year, but I was wondering if you happen to remember why you posted the conflict of interest warning on Kuda188's talk page in September of 2017? In case your wondering its Revision as of 12:12, 5 September 2017 (edit) (undo). I ask because he subsequently deleted the warning, along with warnings by other people about it by other people, including myself and it seems like he is still editing pages for the same company in the same ways that come off as advertisements. Also, I did an internet search for his screen name and there where more then a few links to social media accounts that he maintains full of stuff related to Bethel Music. Therefore, I think there is clearly a conflict of interest going on there that should be dealt with. The fact that he deletes questions about it instead of just saying he doesn't is a red flag also. I'm interested to know what your thoughts on it are or if you think further action should be taken in light of his editing behavior not changing since then. Thanks -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Christmas! | ||
Hello JamesBWatson, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 01:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
we wait for your position for the enclosed as you seem to be obsessively mamanging there on this web site we consult and request your feed back more references from all over the world for this company now valued at 4 billion dollars .
-- Sunlinestar ( talk) 11:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
appologies nothing personal I am to busy to look after you and read above
please edit and progress the articles based on the references
see you in 7 weeks no problem at all
i politely send you 55 references for an article.,
initially you said there is no reference and you deleted all the previous references
now we bring you again the 55 references up to wikipedia its not a big deal
dont have time to argue with you
please let me know if the references are good for an article otherwise
we forget about it no problem at all . wikipedia is no big deal. lots of junck
we wanted to help wikipedia.
as you dont seem to understand lets make it simple please respon point by point
1) did you review the 55 references the only thing that matters to progress
2) do you want to do an article about the bankset based on the references
3) do you want TO bring a text for this product i am interested in
WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT DO YOU WANT ? YOU ARE A MATH TEACHER ?????
PLEASE RESPOND AFTER EACH POINT ABOVE 123 WITH A SHORT RESPONSE 5 WORDS MAX
cheers -- Sunlinestar ( talk) 19:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
You might want to revoke their talk page access. — Rain Fall 06:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
JBW, once again I'm concerned with Legacypac's incivility directed towards me. The editor's recent talk page comments are, in my view, totally uncalled for. This is more of the same bad faith, stooge of the NRA type stuff. In particular I'm thinking of these edits [ [1]], [ [2]], [ [3]], [ [4]]. It's not like I'm the only one complaining. LP was just infront of an ANI a few weeks back for civility issues. I'm ok with disagreements but not the constant accusations and personal attacks. Thanks for any suggestions Springee ( talk) 00:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
JBW, I also think LP's attempt to campaign for sanctions against me is very much a CIVIL issue [ [5]]. Springee ( talk) 19:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear James, I'm writing to you in the name of my father (67 years old, he is new to Wikipedia). He mistakenly used his sandbox page to create an article which does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines. The contents of the page are very important to him and he had been working on it for a long time (he is currently hospitalized and it is his only hobby). I understand why you deleted the page, but ask you to please provide him with the last content of the page so that he can back it up and use it somewhere else. I can guarantee that he won't reuse the sandbox page in this way. The page URL is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Thezamirs/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1 Thank you Thezamirs ( talk) 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you please visit my talk page, want to ask you something. Eatcha ( talk) 13:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
And Happy Christmas Eatcha ( talk) 13:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Giving you a heads-up regarding this newly registered editor. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Peggyterry – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 15:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, James, what do you think of this? – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 05:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Few days ago you blocked @Weathereditor44 because he was a sock of weathereditor ( /info/en/?search=User:Weathereditor) with dozens of confirmed clones.
He is back under the name of @Weathereditor46 /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Weathereditor46
Can you ban this guy's IP too? He is going way too far, his number of clones is approaching 100. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.224.18 ( talk) 18:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I hope you enjoy it! Foxnpichu ( talk) 18:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, You have just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Job ticket as Delete, despite both the Nom Doric Loon and the only other participant (me) in the AfD suggesting a disambiguation page, saying "but I don't see any justification for that, as the term is not mentioned in either of the suggested target articles (except in one case as a redirect to this article) and in any case is not in common use in English in either meaning." There is abundant evidence that the term is in common use in British, Australian and US English (see for example the freely available digitised Australian newspapers, etc, on Trove [6]). The Work order article was incorrectly linked to this now deleted article. A disambiguation page could have links to the Work order article and the Season ticket article, with a brief explanation that it is an English term used with that sense only in German. There is also another meaning, synonymous with Meal ticket, and a disambiguation page could have a link to the Wiktionary entry for that. Please could you reopen this AfD and undelete the page, so that the Nom and I have access to the article in order to create the disambiguation page? RebeccaGreen ( talk) 00:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, The result was certainly delete. As I was the only one who supported keeping the article, when you said "Much of what is said by the one editor to support keeping has little connection with policies or guidelines" it obviously refers to me. I always attempt to apply policies and guidelines, in this case WP:POLOUTCOMES, which I clearly stated. Unfortunately, I copied the text of that from the previous AfD, and did not notice that Wikipedia has changed the wording since that AfD. I don't know why you note that with interest - clearly I should check the wording of policies and guidelines every time, in case changes have been made, but I did not intentionally either change the wording or choose the older wording over the new one. I do not know why you felt it necessary to say any of this, nor why you feel that votes that show no attempt at all to do WP:BEFORE are in line with policies and guidelines, whereas I attempted to show that it WP:HASREFS. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 11:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. All major removal of content in the past month here has got to be from the same person. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 16:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
Here. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I have forwarded the email you sent me to the arbitration committee for review, at their request. GoldenRing ( talk) 09:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the date vandalising anon is back - 2001:e68:60ee:b401:1dfb:6a47:26f0:3c0f. - Sitush ( talk) 12:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi James, please have a look at this one: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/One_dead_Coke_sucker
I don't want to have to work my way through all his nonsense... the user account has been set up for complete vandalism. Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 13:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
No need now... someone has just jumped on him. Acabashi ( talk) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
On December 6 2018, you levied a baseless accusation against an account of being my sock puppet. Such baseless accusations are against wikipedia policy. If such an egregious violation happens again, I will report you for harassment. -- PaulGosar ( talk) 00:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello James,
I had created a page with the name of SKIDOS on 30th July, which got deleted by you. I would request you to guide me further as i would like to recreate another page for this topic. I have got only 1 recommendation: To link the reference link with the same content. Can I recreate the page with the mentioned changes?
I am waiting for your guidance
Thanks
-- Adi skidos ( talk) 07:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi James, It's been awhile! At Nuclear power I may have got close or crossed 3RR recently. I was already close to the line and talk page discussion asked me to restore some of my work on citaitons, so I did that, and then I quit editing the page for a spell. Meanwhile, another editor continues their barrage. Please take a peek, and if you agree, could you please drop a cautionary note on BL's user talk ? Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I ask combat vandalism of user TJRS on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Theresa_May&action=history (vandalism against relevant information in personal life (May loves different music). Thank you! Yellow Man 1000 ( talk) 13:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Giving you a heads-up about this and this. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 23:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
IP insists upon having a blank talk page. Not even templates allowed. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
You deleted an article on a D.W. Waterson, as A7. Could you look at it, and deterine whether it covers the same individual as D. W. Waterson?
If so, could you merge the histories, and that of the talk pages?
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 12:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi James, Per RevDel reason 2 S(smears BLP etc) please redact edit sum in this diff as it smears climate scientists in general impugning them of at least unethical if not criminal conduct. Thanks for thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
[7] [8] I've already reverted the second given the unreliability of the source. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 22:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
Hi JBW. A couple of months ago, you warned Karumari about ARBIPA discretionary sanctions, and the consequences of advocating a certain POV. Their latest edits make me believe a topic-ban is now necessary; see this, this, this and this. I'm involved on those pages, and so cannot impose a sanction; would you be willing to take a look? Regards, Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
A Kenyan IP calling Trump "our President"? – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 16:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I have appealed my topic ban. Please see this: (Mobile link to appeal)- Karumari ( talk) 19:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
As you attended one of the previous two Manchester meetups and/or expressed an interest in being notified about future ones, this is a heads-up that I have started organising a meetup in Manchester on 9 June 2019 - details are at m:Meetup/Manchester/36. Please feel free to invite others with an interest in Wikimedia/Wikipedia to join us. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
There is an excessive editor called Musicfan122 who has completely made up climate normals for Dubai that are absolutely ridiculously wrong and reverted my fix even when I told the person that making up unverified numbers are wholly unacceptable. For example, Abu Dhabi at a similar elevation and nearby has 24/13 normals for January, while this person claims Dubai has "19.7/11.0" in spite of having a largely identical climate to Abu Dhabi. I simply restored the sourced weatherbox that has always been the case for the Dubai, used since way back (I can date it back to 2012-13), which someone else also had done prior to me. Then this Musicfan122 user immediately eliminated my restoration in order to put the absolutely erroneous numbers up once more. This person has completely hijacked Dubai's article so far this year, making hundreds of edits going by the revision history ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dubai&offset=&limit=250&action=history). It is in my opinion high time to sanction this vandal before the Dubai article becomes something akin to their personal blog or something... Us serious weather editors can not be everywhere simultaneously so it is important to get help in that regard. I would be very thankful if I could get your help in doing something about this. Best wishes and cheers// Lommaren ( talk) 14:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
[9] [10] [11] – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 20:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. I would report this to the noticeboard but I'm at work and don't have time to find the earliest good version. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
JBW, I don't know what to do about this but I figured I would at least post it here so I can find it later. ARE related to firearms. LP chimes in [ [12]]. I replied to LP's accusations. The reply was a posting on my talk page accusing me of lying. LP has yet to back the accusation. Anyway, my concern is this is yet another example of LP throwing out accusations of bad faith and claims of COI without any substance. [ [13]] When is enough enough? Thanks. Springee ( talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mohammad Ali Taheri. 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. 49.198.21.145 ( talk) 21:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The article in question is The Myth of the Negro Past. There are more than enough reliable sources to warrant its existence (see Google books here and Google scholar here). Thank you. Mitchumch ( talk) 10:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you blocked IPs: [14] [15] [16] [17] per “Block evasion by a long-blocked editor.” There’s a recent edit here [18] made by an IP which geo-locates to the same location as the blocked IPs and appears to be from the user [19]. The same interest in the Generation-related articles, same editing patterns, same spelling and grammar, and same type of agenda editing made me suspicious that these are all made by the same user User:Aboutbo2000. The contributions from the editor and the IPs show that the editor is not here to collaborate with other users and improve the articles, but to push their POV against reliable source by trimming down or removing reliable sources, misrepresenting what the sources state, adding unreliable sources that match their POV, and reverting changes that they disagree with. Could you look into this please? Thanks for your time, Someone963852 ( talk) 04:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Since you are a third-party, uninvolved administrator, could I request your thoughts on an issue that has been going on for a long time now regarding a certain editor? There is currently a discussion going on at the Millennials talk page Talk:Millennials#Date_Range_Sources regarding the reliability and accuracy of the sources in the ‘Date and age range definitions’ section. The current article states that the “United States Census Bureau defines the millennial generation as those born from 1982–2000,” but as stated by the topic starter, this is inaccurate and untrue. The editor provided two sources, including one from the official 2017 US Census Bureau [20], which states differently and proposes that the current source used in the article be updated.
But as expected, User:DynaGirl who thinks they own the generation-related articles and has misrepresented and misled sources in the past to push their non-neutral POV replied by ignoring the discussion topic at hand and misrepresents the RfC conclusion [21] (the RfC was about changing the lead of the Millennials article and nothing about the reliability of sources or the current discussion at hand) in an attempt to stifle the discussion because updating the sources wouldn't match their non-neutral POV.
I learned from this comment [22] that the User:DynaGirl’s long-term, problematic and disruptive behavior of editing fits exactly into what is called Civil POV Pushing.
Locality - They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme. The user mainly edits the generation-related articles, such as Xennials, Millennials, Generation Z, Generation X, Baby Boomers, the Generations sidebar, etc and stated that they have a specific interest in the generation-related articles [23]. They've formed their own opinions and conclusions on what the generation-related articles should be, so they try to push their POV onto the articles regardless of collaboration or what reliable sources have to say.
Neutrality - They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV The user trimmed down the Pew source [24] and added a "disclaimer" at the end of it despite objections on the talk page because they personally disagreed with the Pew's date ranges. The user tried to disclaim the main Pew source on a different article [25] by misrepresenting a different source [26]. The user added “An earlier 2014 publication from Pew Research described the cohort as born after the year 2000” after the main Pew source using [27] as a reference. But the reference used is not the views of Pew nor is it a report by Pew (which the changes inaccurately implies and misleads the reader to thinking it is); it’s a book interview with Paul Taylor, the author of the book, and the author's views on the date ranges. The user is misrepresenting sources under the guise of "tweaking" to mislead readers and push their POV. give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. The user stated in a discussion that the outdated Neil and Howe Strauss source “stands the test of time” and gives undue weight to it just because the source matches their POV and uses it to disregard the other more reliable, relevant and up-to-date sources which disagree with the date ranges. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in." The user tried to add [28] sources that closely match and support their POV, even though those sources are not defining or researching the Millennial date ranges in any way but uses them for categorical purposes. Even the Chamber of Commerce source that the user added [29] states that "Sources, though, are inconsistent, with as many as 21 different birth spans referenced." When they are unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research. The user is accusing [30] another editor of original research because they personally disagree with it.
Editing They revert war over such edits. The user has edit warred on generation-related articles [31] [32] and was giving a warning that they will be blocked by an administrator [33]. They may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets. [34] Interaction with the blocked IP who shares the same POV as the user.
Discussions They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view. Looking through the talk pages and archives of the Millennials [35], Generation Z [36], Xennials [37], and other generation related talk pages, if any discussion crops up that the user disagrees with, they'll be there to push their POV until the conclusion ends in their favor or until the other editors eventually relent and leave. There is absolutely no collaboration taking place. The most recent example here [38] where the user opposed the article move [39] by lying and claiming that "it seems at odds with multiple discussions and concerns raised on the above talk page." But looking through the Talk:The_Greatest_Generation and Talk:G.I._Generation and its archive, the only one discussion about the move was [40] which was started by the same user and which the user moved the page against objections from another editor. Here is an example [41] of an editor pointing out the user’s disruptive behavior on a different article. They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors. The most recent one was [42] [43] and I wouldn't be surprised if the user requested an RfC for the current issue or any other new issue that crops up that disagrees with their personal opinions. They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions. An editor pointed out that the user has misrepresented them and an administrator [44].
Sources They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature. The fact that the user is opposed to the recent discussion [45] on making sure that the sources in the article are accurate and reliable says a lot about the user, their uncollaborative nature, and their attempts to make the article fit their POV. An editor provided sources for their proposed changes [46], but the user accused them of original research or synthesis [47] because they personally disagree with the changes.
These are just some few examples that I can remember off the top of my head. Is there anything that can be done about User:DynaGirl and their long-term pattern of problematic and disruptive behavior in the form of Civil POV Pushing? Could you give me your thoughts please? It seems like any edits or changes to the generation-related articles will have to go through that user's approval first or the changes will be reverted then discussed extensively on the talk page to meet that user's POV before any changes can be made.
Thank you for your time and for reading this, Someone963852 ( talk) 03:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Just letting you know that The Big Year and other pages have been victims of an IP hopping vandal (66.41.0.0/16 range) since at least September. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 17:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
I confess, I am a master sock, I started off on this account then ended up getting block, so I created many accounts. Some other accounts I have created included FetchFan21, 1mikie19, MikeySalinas17, BeeBliss16 and Bigteddy1. Currently I own CaptainDanger25 where I set up many accounts to get blocked that included WP Editor 2012 and many other accounts that were part of the May 2018 case. Like some of my other accounts I reported accounts to chase admins using CaptainDanger25. I even threw off admins to let them believe Bigteddy1 was being attacked when it was just me along.
I have many ip's to chase admins away. I have even submitted socks cases wait other simulation 12 socks
Ip's include
Plus many more 174.255.7.252 ( talk) 23:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello James. Thankyou for looking into my article but James I think you mistook the content of it. IT's purely not for advertising or a promotion of any product or service. As i read the terms of wikipedia. i created that article since it has to be on wikipedia since its major for history of srilanka. As thr oldest and the largest production company of srilanka. That is some information that has to be here. Please look into my matter and consider. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshen Ratnaraja ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello JamesBWatson,
I'm about to create an article 1949-50 Macedonian Republic league, but I have noticed that you moved or deleted a page with the same name back in 2014 and you have left a notice reg creating a new page, I'm not sure what content you have moved or deleted, but I want to create a page same as 1954-55 Macedonian Republic League which I did it few hours ago, will that be sufficient enough? Kind Regards, F00700I ( talk) 12:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. Thanks for the edit Buffs ( talk) 15:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Since you’re familiar with the sockpuppetry that has happened over on the Generation related articles (most recently with User:Aboutbo2000), could you let me know if I’m not alone in being suspicious of a "new" user that has recently popped up?
There’s a "new" editor ( User:Carfree82) editing on Generation related articles that I’m suspecting is a sock… It just seems a bit suspicious to me that User:Carfree82 was created two months ago, made minor edits on a few random articles, then made this edit: [53] and exactly 2 minutes later, went on a different Generation related article’s talk page [54], being their first time editing on an article’s talk page and attempting to get editors blocked.
User:Carfree82 then made random small edits to random articles possibly to not make sockpuppetry obvious, then made a talk page comment 13 minutes later on a different Generation related article [55] stating almost the exact same thing as another user [56], trying to use the RfC outcome to shut down discussion about changing the lead or ranges. It also seems suspicious that this editor of two months knows what an “RfC” is and that they went back to the archives to dig it up.
Let me know if I’m not the only one that’s a bit suspicious about this possible sockpuppetry... Thanks, Someone963852 ( talk) 22:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I am from India and found the article page through Google only to see that it was deleted and read the page for why it was deleted.
I think this deletion was political vandalism. Vidyut Kale is a public figure on digital rights in India and has participated in internet rights movements in the country. She is something of a lone wolf and polymath supporting many campaigns in public interest, but there won't be significant organization related coverage of her because she is careful to stay independent of organizations and political parties. Being a woman, and opposing ruling party that controls most media, you will not find coverage for activists opposing government.
She opposes the ruling BJP in India with a notorious IT cell and is the subject of several targeted attacks from them. They have organized workers on all social media as well as Wikipedia. Some of the delete recommendations are by users whose history reveals edits of interest to the ruling party.
Some of the analysis of references is also not correct. You can verify for yourself.
For example, this article, that is analyzed as only mentioning her is interviewing her as among the early founders of the group intending to form a Pirate Party in India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Activists-bemoan-absence-of-active-Pirate-Party-in-India/articleshow/34542968.cms
This article is analyzed as her being mentioned in a "non-substantive, transitory sense" while discussing laws used for censorship in India. This is not correct, her case is being analyzed because she got defamation notices due to an expose of a scam. https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/VViKHUnyEZzuxOSQumBhEL/Free-Speech--Virtual-empowerment.html Another user calls it an advocacy piece because its sources include three major digital rights related organizations in India!
This article in an award winning publication with its own Wikipedia page (as pointed out by another user) is called an unreliable source in the analysis https://www.thefridaytimes.com/peace-after-pathankot/ what is important here is that this is a Pakistani newspaper quoting her on a subject of tension between India and Pakistan.
I contacted her before messaging and she is not interested in pursuing this, but as administrator, you should care that Wikipedia is being used to refuse credibility to dissenters by the fascist party in rule.
~ Preethi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.197.197 ( talk) 21:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Looks like all edits from IPs starting with 73. are acting on behalf of 173.61.138.18, which has been blocked until 20 June. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 21:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi James, Zebodee Fielder, set up today, appears likely to be opened by an IP specifically for disruption... see link where I have detailed this. The IP and Zebodee Fielder, and Mhe123456 who has also disrupted Bexhill High earlier this year, might of course be doing this from the school. The IP centres on East Sussex County Council in Eastbourne, next door to Bexhill, so the school's IPs could well come under the council. There may be a case for stamping on this before it becomes a more serious problem. Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 10:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Drawing your attention to the discussion on the AFD closure of Vidyut Kale at deletion review. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hey! I saw that you deleted a page I created. Yes, this page was indeed deleted in past as well and I had carefully read the deletion discussion and researched on subject. After that, I saw that there were many relevant references which were not present when the page was created and deleted in past. I used those references and created the page again. I feel that you didn't notice that the page was created absolutely fresh with all relevant citations. I don't remember if we have a rule where a page that was deleted in past can not be created again. I think I have created one or two and they were okay. I read G4,
"It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies,"
The reason for deletion were no sources and relevant citations which is no longer applicable. Hence, I think, G4 should not apply. Would it be possible for you to check the new page that I had created and see the difference from the previously deleted draft? I am sure you will see why I thought that the page should be created. Thanks for your time!
Alivenkicking ( talk) 16:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Whenever you have time, you should look into 273 & 283. There might be more. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Abbyjadali ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)== Deletion of MONQ Aromatherapy ==
Hello! I saw that you deleted a page that I created about MONQ Aromatherapy portable diffusers. I can understand why it was deleted, it did seem a little like an ad, and I didn't realize that I couldn't use the companies website as a source. I was wondering if I could re-create this page to make it much more neutral to just talk about the company and their mission? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbyjadali ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Could you please tell me why you are remove our texts from talk page!? How can we open conversation then!? How we can contact and request! This is unbelievable, please bring back changes.
Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Yusuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.126.244.245 ( talk) 15:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. Mind stopping by here when you get a chance? There are no reliable English references, only the likes of Facebook and YouTube, simply because the person in question isn't known by other names in English. There are, however, plenty of reliable references in Persian but the pusher dismisses those as "fake". – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 21:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Assuming no one else as requested this and with reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidyut Kale and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 3 where I said I might work on this if no one else would. I make the WP:BOLD move and request WP:REFUND of Vidyut Kale + talk page to my userspace. The final two edits (excluding any added by the temp undelete) and will to be reverted as a COI edit however those version indicate possible errors corrections particularly around the so I would like to consider them. My impression is I would like to rework most of the article from scratch so I will probably revert to near original contest, consolidate and examine references on a workpage and slowly build from there. It's a technique I've used before on WP:RESCUEs but I don't normally if ever to live bios. The result may or may not be suitable for mainspace ... it may end up being not able to progress beyond draft. Apart from an initial tear apart work on this may progress slowly. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
This looks like a violation of WP:SOAP to me. What do you think, James? – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 16:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Please don't make WP policies more readable/understandable. It's disruptive!-- Bbb23 ( talk) 11:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting out my editing block! -- Redlentil ( talk) 11:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
You might like to know there is a partial duplicate in this contribution. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, colleague. Can you look on Talk:Qizilbash#Qizilbash Turcoman. Two years ago there was a discussion with me involved. Several other involved users put forward their arguments, but then I left the English Wikipedia for a long time. Now, I have returned and put forward (or rather reinstated my older ones) my arguments, and these are without any answer for several weeks. What should be done, according to the protocol of mediation. Can I already call for 3O or what? John Francis Templeson ( talk) 06:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi JamesBWatson,
I have a problem :-( Some Wikipedian reverted my 7 consecutive edits, then restored only one. These edits took me a lot of time and effort. Were they all wrong? Really? Could you please take a look at them? Vikom talk 03:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I had a good laugh reading your revelation, I'll admit not having pressed the diff link but it's almost as if the quote has come full circle. Regardless of the thread or the issue at hand, I do agree with the statement. It is how it is. -- qedk ( t 桜 c) 07:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I just read an old discussion, where you wrote "However ... Is the film notable?"
Good question, so I looked it up on imdb. The film earned over a million bucks, on its opening weekend. So, not a blockbuster, but a very substantial return, for a documentary. So, is that enough to satisfy your notability concern? Geo Swan ( talk) 18:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Very unfair action, equate me with a sock puppet, so as to avoid the discussion. Now that my previous IP was blocked, I was forced to sign up. My criticism was justified. I hope you think again and open the discussion. The other user is constantly looking for excuses to avoid criticism. I hope you check it again. [58] Megekono ( talk) 22:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting out the Smithies problem. Yes, the rest of us are singularly short of intelligence. I'll try to get a brain transplant some time. Bmcln1 ( talk) 08:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, you just deleted my sandbos for advertising, which I understand. I have no intention of publishing the article (I apologize if I did by submitting what I did) and I'm only writing it because writing a basic page on wikipedia is a requirement for one of my courses. Is there any way you could undo the delete, if only for long enough for me to get what I wrote up back?
Hey, JamesB,
I deleted this draft and was looking at the log history and its recent history of deletion and restoration. I was going to protect the page since it has been repeatedly recreated by paid editors but since you've restored this article (twice), I thought maybe a decent article was possible. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello User:JamesBWatson, you just deleted my Sandbox page. We are a group of master students at the University of Padova working on a Wikipedia project: [ [59]] Could you kindly inform me the exactly URL of the original webpage of the supposed copyviolation and please, re-check because we didn’t make any copyright violation. Could you please also check if the copyviolation was present in the article prior to our contribution. If it is possible, please, undelete our revision in the article [ [60]] We just put together some scientific facts of the topic and we didn’t advocate any opinion. Thank you in advance -- Anastadi ( talk) 09:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
user:JamesBWatson, Thank you for restoring my sandbox. Could it be possible to restore our changes on the article Cultural neuroscience as well? If not please give us an explanation. Thank you Anastadi ( talk) 09:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
[61] – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 02:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi James. This user appears only to have set up (in March 2011) a Wikipedia user page as vanity spam. He has contributed absolutely nothing to the project; his pictures from Wikimedia are pure selfies. Does this constitute any infringement of Wikipedia protocols? Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 11:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Springfield, Oregon, is evidently full of bored students. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 21:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I posted a link to the diffs at RFPP before realising they likely qualify for revdel and I should have asked for that first. Anyway, in between point A and point B, there was some stuff added which seems to cross the line of BLP. Would you please take a look? BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 19:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JamesB. I just happened to run across these from Italy:
151.68.0.0/16
151.36.0.0/16
151.38.0.0/16
151.18.0.0/16
151.82.0.0/16
151.34.0.0/16
– Skywatcher68 ( talk) 16:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi!
I've pinged you on the talk page of an article which you have discussed some details with me in the last year.
Not sure if you have received the notice, so I posted here again to bring it up.
If you have already noticed that and decide not to respond, then please excuse me for bothering you again in your talk page.
Best Regards
Tomskyhaha ( talk) 17:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I know you might think it is a joke, but it is not. It is a true and serious article about that theorie. I thought that a good place to begin with by letting people know about it would be Wikipedia. However, if after this, you still think it is inopportune, there is no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of the Universe 322 ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You have deleted my userpage while I was building, I used a template provided in the user page section called John and was busy deleting non relevant information. User:AdriaanBuys ( User talk:AdriaanBuys) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdriaanBuys ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Three articles that you deleted per G5 ( Washington nickel, States two thousand-dollar bill, and Roanoke Island, North Carolina half dollar) were previously deleted per the same criteria, but undeleted by User:Bbb23 as they were notable currency articles. Could you undelete them again? Also, is there any way to avoid this misunderstanding in the future? - ZLEA T\ C 16:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Guy, if there is some problem with me, then explain it, or just go and report it to any venue necessary. Don’t shadow me, disrupting my work. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I was fine with the article being redirected, but I would like to please have the markup restored as she is likely to be notable in the future. Just because one IP editor ignored the AfD result does not mean the article's history should be removed. Are you willing to restore, please? I've requested at Talk:Plastique Tiara and on my user talk page. I'm fine with the page protection as well. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)