Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 25 January 2013 (Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 5d) to User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 50.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) (I usually don't use watchlisting, because I have found I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for five days it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm FreeRangeFrog. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Humaniqueness, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Thanks, FreeRangeFrog

Can you handle?

See this. Moriori (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a message to the latest IP's talk page. In case he/she has moved from that IP address and never sees it, I have also posted a similar message to the article's talk page, and made a dummy edit with an edit summary calling attention to it. If the problem continues, I will semi-protect the article. I would much prefer to block the IP editor, but I don't know any way of blocking an IPv6 range. I would prefer not to revert myself at this stage, to avoid risk of being accused of being "involved" if I do take admin action later. I see that you have reverted just once. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Moriori (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Ariix

How come Ariix was deleted by you? Despite the fact that the article was created by the CPO and somewhat creating a COI, I'm sure she didn't mean to use it as "blatant advertising". Is there any way to incubate, userfy the page or enable a new page to be created from scratch that conforms to NPOV guidelines (I ask because User:RHaworth deleted a page only because he thought the industry was "immoral" )? Thank you. Original link here. Edwardw818 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What is "the CPO"? To me, it means only "Chief Petty Officer", but checking on Wiktionary I find it can also be "County Prosecutor's Office" or "Chief Procurement Officer". None of those seems to make any sense in the context.

In assessing proposals for deletions, we do not try to assess the motivation of writers, but only the outcome of their writing. Thus, whether the writer of the article meant it to be advertising is irrelevant, and what matters is whether it read like promotion. Dennis Brown, who is an administrator, thought it looked like promotion, and so he tagged it for speedy deletion. It also looked like promotion to me. It was not such blatant spam as some articles we get, but the overall tone of the article was clearly promotional.

It is possible to userfy the article for improvement, but it seems to me more straightforward to just write a non-promotional article from scratch.

I have read the message from RHaworth that you refer to, and it is a gross misrepresentation of what he says to assert that he "deleted a page only because he thought the industry was immoral". He does not suggest that he has even taken morality into consideration in any deletion he has made, let alone that he has deleted an article "only" for that reason. All that he says is that articles about such businesses tend to be treated more harshly at AfD, which is a very different matter altogether. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

142.55.218.104 (Sockpuppet)

• IP address user 142.55.218.104 keeps vandalizing the Punisher's page. He/she gives no reson and no reliable sources to prove he or she's point since the page very well describes who and what the character is.

Also, I believe that IP address user 142.55.218.104 is a what they call here on wiki, a Sockpuppet since the numbers are almost the same as the last

• 142.55.218.233
• 142.55.218.114
• 142.55.218.78

If you know another administrator who would be best to deal with this, please let them know.99.168.75.21 (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have range-blocked the IP-addresses involved. I have also removed semi-protection which another administrator put on the article. There are many constructive edits to the article from other IP addresses, so page protection would cause a good deal of collateral damage. However, in the last two months there has been only one useful edit on any article from the IP range involved, so range blocking for a few weeks will cause little if any collateral damage. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Suffolk County (Somewhere) Police Department

EEng (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Block, please

Apparently upset by this , this guy went through my contributions reverting left and right . Sorry to run to Daddy, but I believe a block is warranted. EEng (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I do see that the user in question has decided, rightly or wrongly, that there are problems with your editing and has evidently therefore been checking your editing history and reverting those of your edits that he/she rightly or wrongly think are at fault. However, I also see considerable problems with your editing, including edit warring on several articles, uncivil remarks to other editors, and so on. I do not see sufficient grounds for a block of the IP address, as you suggest, but beware of the possibility of a boomerang if you choose to pursue the matter. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to create an article deleted by you...

Hey, I was looking up Misplaced Pages to find out whether an article had been created on Inside Apple 'The Secrets Behind the Past and future Success of Steve Jobs' Iconic Brand' by Adam Lashinsky... I found out that the article had been deleted by you for the reason that there was Unambiguous advertising or promotion... Would it be alright if I recreated this article??? I assure you there will be no promotion or advertising and I will follow the norms of creating an article very strictly... I will create the article and hope that you will review it... This is just to remind you cause I thought you deserved to know....Please tell me if you like it or not...Ajayupai95 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a previous article on the subject was blatant spam should not in any way interfere with your ability to write a better article on the subject. I look forward to seeing the result of your work. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

third way/gun article

I re-redirected that article. The AFD was closed procedurally, and I was specifically instructed by the closing admin to take whatever action I felt was appropriate as if the AFD had not occurred.

Per their own site, they are firmly part of the third way, with the same management team "Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the AGS Foundation (AGSF) have been folded into Third Way, an organization founded and operated by the former AGS and AGSF management team." there is no reason for a stand alone article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. However, that does not address either the fact that the redirect target is unhelpful, as the target article does not mention the redirect term, nor the fact that I think the subject is notable enough to be the subject of an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ME

Why did you block my ip? all i did was make the zomberry island part on the poptropica talkpage and its true that it already came on and i log everything so i dont knw whats wrong but just please respond :) Tyvm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.217.37.82 (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The IP address that you posted that comment from has never been blocked. I have checked every IP address that has edited Talk:Poptropica since June 2012, and none of them has ever been blocked. What blocked IP address are you referring to? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why u ban him till 14 december? Thats unfair cuz i know who he is and hes me so unblock him from editing adn other stuff please its completely unfair74.217.37.85 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How can I unblock "him" if you won't even tell me who you are talking about? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

74.217.37.82 74.217.37.87 (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The ironic part is that if the one IP address was blocked, and you came here using another IP address to request unblocking, then you'd both be eligible for longer blocks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrot Lord

You might want to take a look at my hunch at User talk:Dennis Brown#You'll probably say no. Ryan Vesey 18:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Research institute DRAFT for review

Howdy, James. I'm following up with you about an article draft in my userspace that I'm hoping you'll review for me (User:JMoore501/Plants_for_Human_Health_Institute). You deleted the original article for being promotional, as was explained on my Talk page. I think this version is a big step in the right direction, hopefully you'll agree. I tried to source any content that could be construed as subjective in order to maintain a neutral perspective, but I'll let you be the judge. Many thanks! JMoore501 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)JMoore501

It's much better than the earlier versions, and I certainly wouldn't delete it in its present form. If you want to move it back to article space then I will have no objection. You may like to think about rephrasing things such as "Providing expertise in farm and agribusiness management, communications and marketing, and fresh produce safety, these Cooperative Extension staff serve as an outreach component to complement the research conducted at PHHI", which still comes across to me as somewhat promotional in tone, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Observe Hack Make

Observe Hack Make was already recreated again. Perhaps it should be salted. JDDJS (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been a few changes, making it questionable whether the article is sufficiently identical to the deleted version. Having recently had a G4 deletion of mine taken to deletion review for that sort of reason, I am reluctant to delete it. However, if another admin decides to delete it then salting will, I think, be appropriate. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)