User talk:JBW/Archive 19

4187:

applies: (1) You are closely involved with the subject, so much so that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Knowledge's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. "Robert has been able to make significant breakthrough with respect to consciousness raising", for example, is at best an expression of personal opinion, and at worst an attempt to promote. (2) You work in advertising, marketing, or "public relations", and are so used to marketing prose that you have become desensitised to it, and are unaware of it. If neither of those two applies then I can only suggest that editing Knowledge articles is not going to be your forte, as you lack the ability to take an objective view. As for "He has became world famous", if you can provide reliable sources independent of Rubinstein which give significant coverage of him, then a Knowledge article on him will be fine (though not, of course, if it is written in a promotional manner). However, I have searched, and failed to find any such sources. I also see that you have re-created the article, and it has been deleted again, this time because another administrator determined that it was a copyright infringement. I recommend being more careful: if you continue this way you may eventually be blocked from editing.

2130:

other pages last night (all of which you deleted and I've not re-visited). In the case of Krishna Maharaj and Chantal McCorkle - both convicted felons - their Knowledge pages must surely have been set up and run by them (or close friends and supporters) for the purposes of presenting their cases. I am totally unable to understand why my adding the existence of my book, which discusses their cases, is advertising or any less promotional than the very existence of their pages. In the case of Slick Rick - also a convicted felon, whose case is discussed in my book - I expect also that his page is, if not created and sustained by him, at least managed by those close to him. I believe in all these cases that if a scholar or someone who is even just casually interested in these people were to use Knowledge to research them, they should know about a book that deals with their cases.

1904:

known as edit warring, and is not acceptable. You have repeatedly removed all content from an article. This is not acceptable: if you think the article should be deleted then you should say so, not take unilateral action. You appear to be trying to impose a particular point of view on an article, and suppress other points of view. This is not the way Knowledge works. If you think changes are needed and other editors disagree then please start a discussion on the article's talk page. You have repeatedly added unacceptable links. Please see Knowledge's links policy to see what is acceptable. Please feel welcome to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

4587:. That page carries the notice "© 2010 British V8™ All rights reserved". If, contrary to that notice, the copyright owner has in fact released copyright, the message on your talk page tells you what to do about it. I was not the administrator who deleted the first version as promotional, but I have seen it, and I do agree with the admin who did so. The article recounted in glowing terms how wonderful Costello was. It was not written in the detached, objective, tone that is suitable for an encyclopaedia article. If you sincerely can't see that, then probably you are so closely involved with the subject that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Knowledge's 5294:

case is the fact of a person having been nominated for the award the main topic of the item, and in that case it is a local report about a local writer having been nominated. Even in that case, we have an article about the fact that a local writer has been nominated, rather than an article about the award itself. There is not even a single case where the article is primarily about the award, and, as I have already said, almost all of them barely mention it. I have known people to argue passionately in AfD discussions that a subject is notable on the basis of less coverage than this, but to me it is not substantial coverage.

2118:

wish for the book to be known about, but in as much as it is a book set in - and largely about my official work in - Orlando I cannot see why it is inappropriate to mention it in the section "In popular culture'. There are other books mentioned on that page and in that section, so why aren't they 'solely promoting a book'? Additionally, there are references to sports franchises, cars, bands and all sorts of other things that must surely, on the same criteria you apply, be 'solely to promote' a product. Further, there are actually Knowledge pages completely and only about books. How are they not promoting themselves?

3595:]. I know that you unblocked me because of doubt and I really appreciated it (especially I thank you because you actually bother to check my history in wikipedia) but here this page still condemns me as the creator of this sockpuppet (if this guy is a sockppupet after all,).Is there something else I should do? I haven’t faced such situation before and I don’t really know what to do. If FuterePerfect hasn’t helped me, I probably wouldn’t have been able to present my case sufficient enough. Sometimes it’s becoming impossible to prove that you are not an elephant! Thank you again for your time. Regards 3322:

guidelines are pretty clear on this issue). We would like to add the page, since the one on René Berger exists on the English version of Knowledge (matter of relevance). The official website is also French-English, and we get a great deal of requests from art amateurs of professionals throughout the world (proven by statitics and external/academic participations). Finally, French may not be the easiest language for all interested individuals, so an entry on the English Knowledge would be most welcome! Should there be any disapprouval or suggestions, your remarks will be greatly appreciated.

1198:? I would argue not (obviously, since I CSD-ed it) because of the implications of the system if it actually exists. A whole new anatomical structure threaded throughout the body that verifies the beliefs of a prescientific culture? That's big news. But since we're not seeing it in the newspapers... For me, most convincing is that even the most recent article I could find focussing specifically on acupuncture points and meridians (linked above) doesn't mention it. That means it fits into the "tiny minority" part of WP:UNDUE such that we don't even bother. 2025:

kind of thing for 4 years, and a long term range block is really to be avoided. It is just possible that a few short term blocks might discourage the editor a bit, so perhaps it is worth a try. Please feel welcome to let me know of further instances. Of course I won't always be online, but I will block the current IP if I am. I will make a few other suggestions for trying to get the IPs blocked more quickly. I don't know how much of this you already know, so please forgive me if I seem to be telling you that grass is green. Reporting further examples at

2126:

book I mentioned in my edits, but I cannot make that clear to the public as Knowledge prohibits this (for, it seems to me, good reasons). Nevertheless, if I'm fair and objective, why should it matter? Are you seriously suggesting that there aren't many books (or for that matter, other things/products) that appear legitimately on Knowledge that weren't written by the author/manufacturer or somesuch? Most of them probably take the precaution of writing under an alias or getting a friend or colleague to do it, but I chose to be more direct in what I did.

3803: 1908:

inaccurate to say that ALL callers are asked specific and detailed information about the dead person they want to contact. Clearly this is not being done. If Hidden Spring Hillbillies (which is obviously a blog from a disenchanted caller) is included, the link from a satisfied caller should also be included. Keeping the Hidden Spring Hillbillies link and deleting the link I added clearly shows your bias against Steve's show and suggests he is using some kind of trickery with his callers.

5225: 5110: 4025: 3945: 3140: 2892: 2604: 2534: 2272: 926: 764: 609: 568: 444: 264: 31: 4242:

go on to use "Dungeon Sea Online", not at people wishing simply to read an objective account in an encyclopaedia article. If you sincerely can't see that this article was promotional, then my guess is that you are closely involved with the subject, so much so that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Knowledge's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection.

5018:

but less sure about "the first establishment of any trace of orchestral classical music". What exactly does it mean? I have written something in coherent English which is probably close in meaning to what the original author intended, but in the past I have had experiences where my attempts have inadvertently changed the meaning to something which is simply wrong. Consequently I tend to make fairly minimal edits in cases of this kind.

3917:

appeared to be about minor fringe branches of schools of martial arts, and it had been suggested for some or all of them that the articles were written by people involved in order to promote their fringe schools. What I saw, both in the articles and in quick web searches, was entirely consistent with that suggestion. As I have already indicated, I am not able to say whether that was the case with the article you have in mind.

2935:

have some conflicts of interest with the colleges that you deleted) you must at least nominate them for deletions (credit due to Monitronic because that is the only article you nominate for speed deletion and I was informed thanks to you I contest the deletion just to find it was gone for good), I felt offended by your actions and could not control my anger, But I suggest next time you don't just delete, ( don't just be )

5269: 4719:

project after we'd already attempted to stop them. The block message provided clear instructions for how users on that range should proceed - requesting an account. This allows checkusers to verify that an account does not belong to the socker before it's created, and the proper response there would have been to refer the user to ACC. Please do not attempt to unblock these ranges again! Thank you.

3764: 1953:

reverting your edits and warning you, my talk page is probably not the most useful place to do so. The article talk page would be better. You say that you "will continue to edit this article daily until it is fair and balanced".d413aebb9f85a123a7c74d; centralaads very much like an declaration of the intention to continue edit-warring, which is likely to get you blocked from editing.

3874:

not sure I understand what you mean by that. I would like to try to help get something on Knowledge about this martial arts. It's become a very popular form of martial arts in America. So I want to help find sources so the topic can be added to Knowledge. Can you give me a couple examples of what types of sources would be helpful to include? Thank you.

3853:

inadequate job, with bits of vandalism missed, and constructive edits inadvertently reverted along with vandalism. (I have found an example of the latter in this article.) Well, we just have to do what we can, and remember that, even if the job we do is far from perfect, we have left the encyclopaedia a little better than it would otherwise have been.

997:, which I gather the above was a recreation of? There's quite a few papers on this subject in recent years, although most seem to be by the same group of researchers, so if it was to be recreated I'd like to make sure that it is sufficiently different from the one that went through AfD. If not, that's ok - I'll worry about it another time. - 3837:

don't have the motivation right now to get into it (I'm burnt out on a few other SPI things I dealt with last month), but thanks for handling that. I actually used huggle regularly for quite a while but recently took a break for a few months while I was transforming most of my computers around. Now I'm back, from time to time.

3913:, and the wording will have been those of the person making the proposal. Anyone could then have contested that proposal. After a week in which nobody had contested the proposal, I will have had a look over the article to check that the proposal was not an unreasonable one, and, provided it wasn't, I will have deleted it. 5968:

I wouldn't worry too much about it. This was a sockpuppet of a persistent sockpuppeteer, taking revenge because I blocked another of their socks. Presumably the SPI will be closed sooner or later, but if you want to ask for it to be closed by a clerk I believe what you should do is replace {{SPI case

5356:

As I said on the user's talk page, I wasn't 100% happy about it, but I could see nothing that I could objectively object to except for the old username. Your comment above and your (now removed) comment on the user's talk page suggest you do know of more grounds for objection. If so please reblock. I

4535:

Hello James, I am trying in vain to upload a perfectly honest and verified article regarding the life and times of a fairly well known British motor racing engineer called Ken Costello. Everytime I have tried to do this, someone takes it off WikiPedia stating it is advertising (what, I have no idea -

4241:

It was clearly written to promote its subject. It contained such language as "DSO has an excellent high standard of support with all problems being resolved within a month". It was largely written in the first person (e.g. "our website"). It gave detailed information clearly aimed at people who would

4186:

Whether Rubinstein's organisation is a non profit organisation or not is irrelevant. The article was unambiguous promotion of him and his work, and Knowledge is not a medium for promotion. If you sincerely can't see that this article was promotional, then my guess is that one or both of the following

3873:

Hello, I was working on some research and found that you just recently deleted something that I felt was very helpful. It was an article called "To Shin Do". The reasons for the deletion said (this is an article without independent sources that fails to say why this is a notable martial art). I'm

3852:

In this kind of situation, where vandalism has gone undetected for a while, it can take for ever searching through huge numbers of edits to find what has been going on. Often this means you have the option of either spending far more time on one article than is reasonable, or else settling for a very

2961:

be left in place, as to do so is to break the law. When an article consists of nothing but a copyright violation from another web site, the original author of the Knowledge article normally still has access to the original, so no information which might be built on for a future article has been lost.

2129:

After your first messages last night I re-added my book to the Orlando page, but without the link to the publisher. It was removed again by someone else (I shall copy this message to that person also). I am, as you probably can tell, somewhat frustrated at this as it seems so unfair. I added edits to

2029:

immediately (i.e. without waiting for the new IP to vandalise a whole string of articles and receive multiple warnings) may be worth while. However, if you do that make sure you give a brief explanation of the fact that this is a vandal with an extended history, otherwise an admin is very unlikely to

784:

I would like to know if "Reign Thomas" aka "Reign Toni" can be added to Knowledge. The author was deleted for information found on "YouTube". I have another author I would like to add "Jacqueline Thomas" also will be publishing her teen novels with Dreams Publishing Company. These women are Christian

5655:

For one thing it seemed to be an abuse of Administrator powers, since it involved deleting the redirect page to make room for it, which mere mortals cannot do. Normally such an act is done by an admin when requested on the basis of consensus for a move. But that's not central. What's central is that

5412:

You g11-ed this at the same time as I declined an a3 - sorry about that. Right now only my post-deletion edits are in history: I'm agnostic as to whether it should be kept (I redirected it to its parent University). I can re-delete using g11, or use some newly discovered hist-merge skills to restore

5293:

Well, there is always disagreement on what constitutes substantial coverage, and I am not going to quarrel with you if you think this does. However, almost every one of the 32 hits is a page with just one passing mention of someone having won the award, or having been shortlisted for it. In only one

5017:

I have done a little copy editing of the article to improve its English. However, I am always wary of doing much of this, for several reasons, including the risk of inadvertently changing the meaning. I feel confident in changing "It is supervised by two musician" by simply adding an "s" at the end,

4889:

The ones I dealt with for this user were quite straightforward, and I decided that just delete and restore the original version was enough. More complex cases, where history merging is needed, can be confusing and error prone, but if you are really careful and don't be tempted to rush then it should

4539:

I find this rather unfiar. Ken Costello is a friend of mine of 5 years and well desrives his place in WP as an old, but very well respected man. The gentleman who wrote the article for me to upload is in fact a well known television journalist and has known Ken for over 40 years. There is NOTHING in

2117:

Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my question; I appreciate that you must be busy. I must say, however, that I'm still left confused about your view on this: it seems to me arbitrary at best, and almost capricious. In what sense was my addition 'solely to promote a book.' It is true that I

2024:

Thank you for the explanation: I had wondered about the odd editing pattern. I have blocked this IP, but presumably another one will be back tomorrow. The only idea i can think of is a range block, but a short term block is unlikely to be effective for a disruptive editor who has been doing the same

739:

was deleted for the reason listed in the deletion log: unambiguous advertising or promotion. The fact that there are many other articles about companies (if that's what you mean by "there are lot of other companies out there") is irrelevant, as this article was deleted on its own merits. Even if you

3746:

Having read that I was going to consult MuZemike before taking action. However, MuZemike has now gone offline without responding to your message, so "he doesn't have any strong opinions on the matter" is probably right. However, I will not unblock just at the moment. If you want to that is fine, or

1049:

No hassles. I only wanted the latter as Bonghan system was nominated for CSD as a recreation of the latter article, so I wanted to make sure that any new version of Bonghan system would be sufficiently different. It should be ok, though, as starting from scratch there shouldn't be a problem. Thanks

527:

I PROD'd this article and you deleted it. Now the article creator is objecting. He says the seven days didn't expire, but even if he's wrong, I would think this could still be treated as a contested PROD (albeit, technically, after the deadline has expired) and restored. Complication is that now he

110:

He admited to using Andy14and16 which was editing while Pooet was blocked as a sockpuppet. That is sockpuppetry right there. I mean I will assume good faith because his uncle has been editing fine. But just wanted to note, it was clear he was sockpuppeting and admits it even in his unblock request.

5764:

Hi, I know that Nembrala is a terrible, awful, article. However it is about a real place rather than a product so I would personally hesitate to put it up for G11 when it can be stub-ified. I'll stub it now and probably remove your G11, however I would have no objection if you were to re-speedy on

5457:

We have to either delete the whole editing history except for the redirect or else restore all of it. The present version effectively gives you as the creator of the version which is still visible in the article history. Since you were not the author of that version this is technically a copyright

2107:

You deleted an entry I made to the Orlando Knowledge page recently. It was the second time I made that entry (I amended it from the first time), and the first entry was deleted by Barek. I've written to Barek with some concerns about the situation and I have copied my message to him below. I think

3836:

I don't know if the recent, persistent account was related to the middle school page. It may be. There are a few accounts on there with some curious histories, including one that looks squeaky clean but has made maybe 20 edits over 2 years, about a quarter of those to the middle school article. I

3201:

The article had been proposed for deletion for a week, and the proposal had not been challenged. However, I will take your message as a belated challenge to the deletion proposal, and restore the article. The proposal said that Shlomit Lir was not notable, so you may like to consider the relevant

2934:

Sorry for being too harsh on you yesterday,regarding the articles you have deleted, But my anger was a bit reasonable to say, You automatically deleted the two articles (based on the reasons that they were directly copied from the source and they were kind of "advertisement and promotion" as if I

2516:

to indicate that it does. Otherwise there is a danger that, in common with many other newcomers to editing Knowledge, you may undergo the frustrating and disheartening experience of putting a good deal of time and effort into writing an article which is doomed from the start to being deleted. The

2125:

The only other aspect of this that seems to potentially apply to me is the section on autobiography and conflict of interest. I read these guidelines carefully. Knowledge does not prohibit such entries, it only encourages you to think carefully before writing an entry. It is true that I wrote the

2081:

to see if they were active the day before, and then revert any damage they've done. I looked into the possibility of a range block, but it appears that there would be too much collateral damage. But the more editors that are familiar with him the better, so thanks for giving this some thought and

1907:

Hello James, The article has many inaccuracies. A link to "Hidden Spring Hilbillies" is included as a reliable source of the the shows call screening policies. The other link was included to balance this, AS A DESCRIPTION OF THE CALLERS EXPERIENCE WITH STEVE'S CALL SCREENER WAS INCULDED. It is

1903:

Hello, Maxandnutmeg. I see that you have encountered quite a bit of opposition to your editing, which must be discouraging. I will try to explain to you what some of the problems are, in the hope that it will help you. You have repeated the same or very similar changes without discussion. This is

1385:

Hello! As I have revised the page that was previously deleted for Tionna Smalls, I wanted to resubmit it. Prior to me doing that the creation paged advised to me contact you, which is the action that I am taking. I will include below the completely revised article and look forward to hearing back

4738:

I blocked 71.178.0.0/17 at 10:21, 23 September 2010, and unblocked the same range at 19:33, 30 September 2010. MuZemike's range block on 71.178.0.0/16 was at 22:09, 8 October 2010, 8 days after my unblock. The IP made 6 edits after my unblock and before MuZemike's range block, indicating that my

4348:

Yes, but before you do so you should be aware of some of Knowledge's guidelines, otherwise you may find yourself spending time writing the article again, only to see it deleted again, which will no doubt be very frustrating. It is not clear to me that the subject Knowledge's notability criteria.

3623:

Thank you BJ for your fast reply and action (really fast!!). If it is possible I would personally prefer to see something like “this user is suspected to be a sockpuppet”. I don’t like to see anything that associates him/she with me. I value my reputation as a wikipedian editor and this is why I

1915:

Your argument that my edits impose a particular point of view can easily be applied to this ariticle as they are clearly biased against Steve and his show. Have you ever talked with him? How much do you really know about his program? There is virtually no personal information about him in this

5526:

Thank you for your concern about vandalism about the removal of the team's entry on Knowledge, but I can assure you that it is not vandalism and we would like the complete entry removed if possible. We will shortly be updating our website and together with this we will be putting a new entry on

4148:

I Created the page Robert J Rubinstein, and seen that it has been deleted as it is seen as SPAM. Robert J Rubinstein's organization is a non profit organization. He organizes conferences around the world speaking about Sustainability. He has became world famous teaching people on this subject.

3916:

I can't comment on the particular article you are referring to, as I don't know what article it was, but I do remember deleting a number of articles on the general topic. As far as I recall none of them showed that their particular sub-branch of martial arts was significant. Some or all of them

3589:

Thank you JB for your reply. Of course I’ve realized that your comment was not meant to be critical. Actually I found it quite helpful. I only wanted to point out that frustration might cloud a person and can be carried away, it happens and probably gave the angry tone to my appeal; thank God I

242:

your block of an IP from this morning. Considering the gross incivility and complete lack of maturity this editor has displayed, I revoked his talkpage access and extended the block to a year. Hopefully he will find some maturity in the coming months. If you have any problems whatsoever with my

4718:

template. Do not, ever, attempt to unblock these ranges without first consulting a checkuser. Fortunately what you attempted to do isn't technically possible, so nothing happened, but if you had managed to undo that block, you could have allowed a serial sockpuppeteer to continue to target the

2121:

In my entries I specifically did not say that the book was good, nor did I recommend it in any way. I did provide a link to the publisher, but only because when I read the Knowledge guidelines it encourages you to substantiate an entry with references. The best way to substantiate that my book

1952:

I tried to help by explaining to you why other editors (not me) had been opposing your editing. You have responded here with a long explanation of your point of view. I am glad that you are willing to put some effort into explaining the reasons for your edits, but since I was not one of those

1977:

for some background. He edits from a new IP address every 24 hours, so there was a filter put in to prevent him from adding certain categories to pages that had a taxobox. It seems that he's figured out the filter, which explains his strange edits today (I noticed you gave him a warning) at:

820:

I think that the article should either state that there is no dispute on the ilegality of the other parties' actions or discuss them. I believe that my addition was a contribution to the neutrality of the openning section of the article. I am open, and I will look at it again, to refine this

3321:

Thanks a lot for your message and concern. Indeed I am part of the Foundation's team and it is in agreement with all of us, that the page has been created. So we assure that there is no conflict of interest. On the other hand our goal is not to promote the foundation through Knowledge (your

2711:

The reasons have been explained to you on your talk page. I have been (a) undoing breaches of Knowledge policy and (b) removing breaches of copyright law. If you really think that these constitute "vandalising", then you be likely to encounter considerable difficulties in editing Knowledge.

1911:

Steve Godfrey has on numerous occasions said he is not a psychic. He is a medium. So calling him a self professed psychic medium is inaccurate. There are half a million listeners who would also call him a medium. Self professed has a negative connotation that suggests he is arrogant.

5559:

In reference to your last message, the third party view of the team in Knowledge is not in line with the current team. We support Knowledge, but not this entry. I am happy to work with you on a new entry in the near future, but in the short term can you remove the current entry. Thanks.

3109:

Yes, I understood your reason, and I am sure that your intentions were entirely good, although your method was mistaken. However, no matter what method is used, creating a disambiguation page is not justified unless there is more than one person of the name who satisfies Knowledge's

2847:

Usually I do not restore articles deleted as promotional, as promotional material does not belong anywhere in Knowledge, not even in user space. However, in this case I feel that the promotional nature of the article was not as blatant as is often the case, so I have userfied it at

1064:

Unless a new series of publications are released in the future, I can't see it being even a stub - it's fringe within acupuncture itself, the only place where it stands even a chance of remaining. The latest mainstream publication on meridians and acupuncture points I am aware of

1269:

Your name has been extensively used to justify a sanction on three editors. However, you never provided diffs in which clearly the policy was violated. So, I would appreciate that you provide diffs so that we know how exactly you can contribute to the understanding of this case

1519:

There are now references, so I am removing the unreferenced tag. I am also correcting a typing error in one of the references. However, the references are both to the BBC, for whom Lee James works, so they are not independent sources. I am not convinced that he is notable by

2122:

exists, and that I'm not just making it up, or vandalizing the site, is to provide a link to the publisher. If I've misunderstood that, then the simple solution is to remove the reference to the publisher. Consequently, I cannot understand how I was 'promoting' the book.

4434:

Yes, I know that full well. However, "Removing entries not linking to articles" is quicker to type than "Removing entries not linking to articles and for which none of the recognised exceptions which might justify their inclusion apply" (or something equivalent).

3005:, no - we'd end up with "a derivative work". It's far safer to start over. Sicne you have access to the original source from which the copy-vio was taken I don't see what the problem is - simply use the source to create a new article which isn't a copy-vio. 2504:

If you sincerely cannot see that language such as the example I have just given is promotional, then you may well be better advised not to try editing Knowledge. Every day large quantities of content far less blatantly promotional than that gets deleted as

1784:

I'm not sure that this award is significant enough to confer notability on its own, but now that you have prompted me to think a bit harder I accept that it is a claim of significance, so I have restored the article. Thanks for prompting me to think again.

5170:

The page you deleted in relation to Liam Mcdermott that was created by me had no venom in it. Liam McDermott is one of my closest friends and he loved the page! I beg that you will restore it so we can both keep adding to it i.e. Liam Mc Dermott an me!

1362:

Yes it is.. I am working on getting sources. As you can see on my userpage I am working on a series of articles, and it take time to find the sources, especially about a small un-developed kingdom, in an area where internet is almost non-existing.. :)

3400:

I have now moved the talk page. I have no idea why it wasn't moved before: normally by default a talk page is moved along with the article. Perhaps I accidentally unchecked "Move associated talk page". Anyway, thanks for prompting me to correct it.

172:

We had an edit conflict. Since school district articles make a good framework. I was in the process of removing the promotionalism So I restored the article with the promotionalism removed. Hope you don't mind, but it seemed the simplest thing to

2108:

the same points I've made to him, and the same questions I have asked, I would also direct to you. I am anxious not to set you at odds, so to speak, but I am seeking a clear answer to my concerns and if you can elucidate on it I would be grateful.

1072:

May I suggest however, that the talk page be transferred as well? There is some analysis of the sources there that may be useful (in my horribly narcissistic opinion anyway). Also, the last long version of the page can be found in the history,

3624:

defend my self so much. However if you advise me to settle and accept it as you have change it, I would accept your advise. I don’t want to keep arguing about it. Already you have done enough. Thank you again for your time and efforts. Regards

3019:

I agree with TFOWR. Also, I have checked one of the articles very thoroughly, and I cannot find anything at all that was not copied form one web page or another. A quicker glance at the other articles suggests that the same is true there too.

1343:

The tool I was using (Huggle) should have given you a message telling you why I reverted your edits, and I don't know why it didn't. You added large amounts of text without any source. i now see that the whole article is, in fact, unsourced.

2757:

Well, I did my best to be helpful, even in the face of being repeatedly accused of vandalism. I am sorry you thought I was rude. To help me avoid similar mistakes in future are you willing to tell me which parts of what I wrote seemed rude?

1919:

His contact information is on his website. His office phone number is 602-258-4389. I know for a fact he does answer his phone. I suggest you call him. If you insist on keeping the content as is, the article should be deleted entirely.

4591:

discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. The fact that you describe yourself as a friend of Costello, and say that the article was written for you someone else who knows Costello tends to confirm this.

4361:

to see what evidence you need to show that it does. Also, including copies of information from elsewhere (such as the rules of the game) almost certainly means a copyright infringement, which could be enough to get the article deleted.

3178:

I have noticed you erased the eatery on Shlomit Lir - can you explain why as she is an acclaimed writer an editor and curator with articles on her in different languages including Italian, Spanish, Chinese as well as English. Thanks

2828:

You recently deleted a page I created as you felt it fell under "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I did not create the page to promote the company and would like a chance to edit the information to address your concerns.

4991:

Yup. There are some stray refs, too. When I get some time I'll go through it and stick the refs where they belong, and copy-edit it. I'm wary of doing too much - I got myself in this mess by copy-editing down to a minimal stub...!

2956:

The idea of leaving an article in place and editing it rather than deleting it has much to commend it. However, there are several reasons why this is not in practice always the best thing to do. For one thing, copyright violations

5472:. Unlikely redirect? Yes, but harmless, it may as well stay. Now that you have restored the old edits I am inclined to just leave it. Really it's not a big enough issue to be worth spending even this much time on, let alone more. 5716: 2048:. Not only does that indicate to any admin reading it that there is a long term problem, but also if a vandalism patroller using Huggle reverts another edit by the same IP then Huggle will (by default) automatically report it to 3572:] I apologize if I came out with an angry tone but I was quite frustrated at that time. I do take much care to be extremely civilized and especially not to insult anyone even if I receive insults.Thank you again for your effort. 4143:

13:25, October 11, 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Robert J Rubinstein" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the

2982:

Regarding your delelations............can't you like revert your deletes and allow me to make changes please, atleast not all contents were taken directly form the website specifyed, Aint you being unfair like that dude?

2678:

I can see you are vandalising, You have deleted all the articles i have created! I have lost hope in adding artyicles and creating new ones because of your actions, Why are you so hard to deal with? You are being unfair!

5428:

Obviously hist-merge isn't relevant here. I've restored the deleted revs, but I'm still in two minds about it - it seems like an unlikely redirect, though I guess it could have some use. Still open to suggestions... ;-)

867: 2229:

They are perfectly trustworthy. However, thousands of inventions are patented and then forgotten about, so the fact of having applied for a patent, or even having a patent granted, does nothing to establish notability.

5660:

is the most common name and therefore must be the article title is not supported by others in the community -- some of whom, like me, are experts on Carrolliana. Please see the Talk page of the article in question. --

3242:

Thank you for reminding about the talk page, which I had missed. I have now restored it. It has a WikiProject Biography template. I am not sure if any more are appropriate, but if you know of any then please add them.

5542:

I hope that you wrote that without having read my message on your talk page explaining why that is unacceptable. I trust that you will now read that message, and will not go ahead with the changes you have proposed.

284:

Dear James B. Watson, and thank you so much for your information about the guidelines regarding creating pages. I have no problems with my page being deleted. Shall I do so myself, or wait for any of you doing it?

488:

is valid, as discussed on my talk page, where I provide valid sources for it. I am not being disruptive. As I do not wish to be blocked, however, would you please kindly undo your revision of that edit? Thanks,

1813:) had created a number of articles with no assertion of significance or importance. This was the only one where there was an assertion of significance—the Ring of Honor—so I cleaned it up rather than delete it.) — 875:

I understand why you deleted the article on the "Global Business Network", but am also familiar with why the subject is notable enough to have an article. (If you're a TED.com fan, you'd more readily agree.)

1923:

Also, I only deleted the content once and that was an accident. There are many who believe in what steve does and many who don't. I will continue to edit this article daily until it is fair and balanced.

3684:

They are admitting to socking, promising not to do it again, and have already been blocked for several months. I'm thinking unblock, but technically you blocked them last so I'm checking in with you first.

2076:

is especially helpful. Lately, I'm not usually online when they are (they are in Indonesia), so I'm not often there to catch them live, but will certainly start doing that when I can. Typically I look at

323:? The numbers from IMF website has been changed by this user. It's possibly a vandalism to write 8480 instead of 8723. Maybe this user uses data from another website but he does not use it in references. 2943:

the content for the article that you find unsuitable , that is the best you can do.You are making us loose hope in editing the articles by deleting our articles as if you don't appreciate our works.

5461:

I don't feel very strongly about which we do (delete or restore) but on balance I would go for delete and re-create the redirect, because information like phone numbers really should not be there.

1194:

It's a tricky one. Obviously it's not widely accepted, but there is a fair number of primary research articles about it in third- and fourth-string regional journals. Is that sufficient to pass

1841:

stating: "Taking author blanking as request for deletion under CSD G7 does not apply to user space pages.". However, general speedy deletions do apply to user space pages. Please take a look at

1234:

Hello, I apologize for my revert, I did`t saw that in the meantime , while I was examining IP`s contributions you already reverted. I did`t intended to revert you. Sorry, my mistake. Greetings.

420: 367:, to which I suppose I replied that the edits were not vandalism. It depends on the type of disruptive editing,but generally speaking for repeatedly making the same edits the place to report is 652: 4543:

I have one last copy of the text, heavily edited and with anything even REMOTELY looking like advertising (which it never was), or violating copyright (which it never was) has been removed.

152:

Thanks for the warning. I will try to remember to look out for it when you recreate it. Please make sure you provide reliable sources so that the information in the article can be verified.

4353:

before doing anything else. If the subject does not satisfy those guidelines then you will be better off forgetting it, and spending your time on something else. If, however, you decide it

3609:

I have changed the notice on the page you refer to, so that the sockpuppetry is merely stated to be a suspicion of "an editor", rather than a fact. Would you be willing to settle for that?

2658:), which I guess you have already seen, as otherwise I don't know how you know I deleted it. If there is a specific point in the reasons given which you need clarifying please let me know. 1845:. You will see a line that says: "These apply to all namespaces (and so apply to articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc)". Thank you, and if you have any questions, please 2214:

Hello, JamesBWatson, Thank you for your attention to my page. Really, I am new user. Please, help me. Aren’t official sites of European Patent Organization trustworthy sources? Why not?

1019:. As for the latter, I have looked very carefully at the deleted article, and it seems that it was written purely to promote its subject, and is therefore unsuitable for userfication as " 130:

You cannot delete a real series. This is not a hoax. I happen to know James Adams in a comic book convention. I want you to return the series or next time I retype it, do not delete it.

1763:

Out of curiosity, how is inclusion in a professional sports organization's hall of fame not an assertion of significance or importance? While it was only sourced to the PBR website,

5458:

misrepresentation. Of course it is too trivial to matter, but it is really better to always stick to the rules on copyright, otherwise we get "where do we draw the line?" problems.

2483:

It is natural for someone new to editing Knowledge to think that the character of an existing article is a guide to what is acceptable, but unfortunately it is not always so. See

5774: 978:

article with you deleted? I was surprised to see it nominated for CSD by someone who had worked on it, but there seemed to be a hint of a worthwhile short article there. :) -

4771:

That's OK, I am as guilty as anyone of sometimes acting without checking every detail of the relevant history: there is a limit to how much checking it is reasonable to do.

2655: 899: 387:

is specifaically editing with the malicious intention of doing harm. Any edits which are intended in good faith are not vandalism, however misplaced that good faith may be.

3042:

Hello, I see you have been quick in coming to a decision about the unblock request, too quick for me to get my 2c in first. You might still be interested in my comment at

666: 5872:

He is not interfering its an investigation about him, the defendant has a right to defend themselves, besides he is innocent of sockpuppetry, its an alternative account--

5682: 1249:

It's the sort of mistake that can easily happen. I've done worse myself. Since you realised your mistake and put it right I don't think there's anything to worry about.

691: 3059:

Actually I was reading that comment and preparing a reply to it while you were posting here, and your comment swayed me to change my decision. Thanks for your input.

1867:

I am well aware that "General" speedy deletions apply to all namespaces, and also specifically that G7 (Author requests deletion) does. What I said does not apply is

662: 300: 141: 4864: 2849: 2395:

When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.

2805:

I have blocked the user, which is likely to be more effective, as the article has been recreated under different titles. However, I have also salted the article.

5688:

Although we seem to be coming at things from different directions on the AFD for Scouts Royale Brotherhood, I was very impressed with the note that you left for

4530: 1380: 1151:

Thanks as well. Personally, I don't think there's anything in the theory - but there might be just enough coverage of it to warrant a NPOV treatment of topic. -

3732:

to chime in, but since he has edited his talk page twice but still not responded to my message it looks like he doesn't have any strong opinions on the matter.

5823: 5702:). I hope we can work together to make this a useful page, but if it does get deleted, I think we've done our best to let the proper wikipedia processes occur. 3333: 1396: 380: 364: 3068: 1981: 1655: 957: 797: 270: 211: 5521: 4479: 3489: 3374: 2732:

You are too hard to work with bro, I even thought you are rude, good byee anyway , Kala po nawa.................. Elianamwiha 13:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

2147: 1386:

from you regarding if it is ready for submission or not. Please advised throughly what needs to be changed or revised if it is still not ready. Thank You.

1323: 296: 1437: 4937: 4932: 4829: 4695: 1932: 368: 2654:

Presumably you have seen the reasons given on your talk page. Also you can see the reasons listed in the deletion log (which you can see by clicking on

4941: 3440: 1800: 716: 636: 3909:

If I did delete an article with the words you quote in the deletion log then they will not have been my words. It will have been an article which was

1448:

can you reinstate the page lee james (bbc) - i have references to add - sorry am new to this and just finding my way - sorry for not doing correctly

5179: 4575: 4196: 2583: 2297:

Thanks for replying there; could you take another look at your most recent comment? I'm not sure if you meant to put in the last part. Thanks again,

1282: 4507:. If so, the reason, as stated in the deletion log, is that they did not "not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Have a look 1301: 308: 4924: 3345: 3118:. You have not produced any evidence that the priest satisfies those guidelines, nor indeed any information about him at all beyond his existence. 2249: 2215: 1749: 1545: 994: 975: 953: 793: 376: 257: 4732: 2437: 695: 5443:

You edit-conflicted me. The following is a slightly edited copy of what I was going to post in answer to the first of your posts in this section.

4524: 4500: 3358: 2833: 2180: 681: 513: 161: 5800:

Hello James. My least recent edit, such as the one I made to Lists of film topics was very constructive because it deletes a wrong link because

5569: 5536: 3723: 3223: 2455:

is almost identically the same, and I followed guidelines to create my page. Please advice, what can I do to offer description of my product .

2201: 1962: 1021:

Material that should not be posted on user pages or subpages in the first place should not be relegated to user space if placed in article space

252: 5881: 5623: 5199:

Whether your friend approved of the article or not, it was not acceptable as an encyclopaedia article. Knowledge articles about people are not

4563: 4515:

to see what is required. The messages placed on your talk page by the editors who tagged the articles for deletion also give more information.

4504: 4334: 4286:

My comment was based purely on the final version, immediately before deletion. I had a copy of it in front of me as I wrote the above comment.

4266: 4221: 4001: 3559: 2971: 2721: 2667: 2499:

Get access to billions of video clips hosted by Google, find the stuff, get related videos and you just won't get enough, because it's endless!

2463: 2322: 2091: 2061: 1264: 854: 824: 753: 555: 5809: 5212: 3862: 3779: 3756: 3741: 3709: 2308: 1533: 1485: 1258: 5323: 5303: 4801:

Thank you for telling me. So then how can I do that as I did with Cambodia to KOC without having to be reverted back by you or someone else?

3882: 3661: 3647: 3633: 3618: 3313: 2684: 2257: 2239: 1271: 414: 396: 248: 6012: 5978: 5669: 5650: 5636: 4780: 4766: 4748: 3994: 3252: 3237: 2861: 1629:

Sure, and no objections to that. Just next time, let me know about it as a courtesy? I am most likely bound to not object whatsoever. ;) --

1424:

better job of providing sources to show notability than it did when it was first tagged for speedy deletion. If you want to move it back to

5947: 5921: 5899: 5561: 5528: 5366: 5095: 5073: 5043:

on my talk page. Though the blocked user was referring to the wrong revert, they inadvertently made a good point. Though I can translate

4687: 4601: 4371: 4295: 4251: 3985: 3974: 3903: 3307: 3127: 2779: 2526: 2373: 2344: 1916:

article. Even the affiliate information is out dated. Clearly this article was thrown together by someone with a chip on their shoulder.

1372: 1353: 847: 736: 348:

was grounds to report a user that has done the same edits even after a final warning on back to back days, but I guess am wrong. Regards --

4536:

they wont tell me), its "unambiguous" (meaning?) and now yourself telling me I might be blocked from ever uploading anything to WP again.

4458: 4444: 3937: 3604: 3424: 3410: 2814: 1824: 1794: 432: 5584: 5552: 5511: 5481: 5401: 5001: 4986: 4913: 4899: 4884: 4093: 3029: 2782:, I have been tracking the article's creation (and its related talk page) for a while. Believe it was and is a good candidate for an A7 2673: 2381: 2367: 2185:

Thank you for replying - I've had limited free time the last few days, so hadn't been editing or replying to posts. I'll take a look at

1672: 1174: 1059: 1036: 891: 3202:

guidelines to make sure that you can show evidence of notability, to avoid another deletion. The most relevant guidelines are, I think,

3014: 1890: 1640: 1624: 1289: 914: 3382: 1146: 1118: 199: 5789: 4673: 1734: 5238: 5127: 4904:

Thanks, will do. Since it's the first time I want to take my time and get it right. I'll grab a coffee and do some re-reading first.

4038: 3958: 3894: 3153: 2905: 2852:. This is intended as a short term measure to give you a chance to improve the page before returning it to main space as an article. 2617: 2564: 2547: 2289: 939: 777: 622: 581: 457: 277: 4818:

Well thank you for your explanation. I am aware now. If not too much, I'll be contacting you for further instructions on Knowledge.

4323: 5575:

Perhaps the best thing is if you explain on the article's talk page exactly what is wrong with the current version of the article.

4872: 4178: 3868: 244: 5831: 5608: 5497: 5438: 4972: 4342: 4278: 4233: 3846: 3550:. I have indef-blocked Alacante45 and Oracle Orb, and blocked 86.173.33.234 for a while. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. 3381:. Could you do that, or is there a prevention somehow? Should I improve WLH first? Btw, a future move is discussed re these pages 3370: 1944: 1006: 145: 4207:

13:24, 11 October 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Dungeon Sea Online" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

4174: 3394: 3053: 2031: 1974: 5422: 5407: 2475: 1160: 1100: 184: 5812:

it is a List of film topics not a List of film glossary. This is why I made this change. But you just reverted or removed it.

5699: 5152:

Cheers for cleaning up all of my messes at the ArbCom election pages; may your trigger finger be ever itchy and your aim true!

3638:

I have removed the user page notice and placed a block notice (which does not mention any name) on the user talk page instead.

3378: 3081:

Hello, Mario Pezzi is a name of several people, one aviator and other is a priest, so I changed. Should make a disambiguation

2508:

If you are considering writing a new article in less promotional terms I suggest first checking that the subject satisfies the

1562: 239: 167: 5938:

It certainly should, but I'm not sure about the "mechanics" of the SPI process. I hope a clerk will do the honorable thing.

5711: 3694: 1653:

Sorry to disturb you if you're doing some, but the Indonesian misinformation vandal has done it again. He's using the address

4946: 3341: 2988: 2159: 1730: 1414: 1404: 5287: 4491: 4078: 4013: 3581: 2648: 2407: 2223: 4928: 4428: 4202: 4054: 3352: 2403:

violated that when he started to claim that Croatian is "the name commonly used for Serbo-Croatian as spoken by Croats." --

2006: 1993: 1690: 1666: 687: 4857: 3228:

James, can you please undelete the talk page too, and ensure that it has the appropriate WikiProject tags on it. Thanks.

1862: 1838: 5451:

The version I deleted still looks promotional to me, and in addition has too little encyclopaedic content to be much use.

4739:

unblock had succeeded. The message I posted to the IP's talk page stated that I was undoing a block I had imposed myself.

4487: 4258:

If you actually read it after we made the edits you would have saw that we rewrote that section and removed most of it.

3501: 3050: 2155: 1778: 658: 540: 490: 304: 137: 5864: 5336: 5254: 5027: 4958: 4841: 4813: 2767: 2352: 1511: 1468: 498: 332: 190:

Far from minding, I think you have done a good job. I will restore the edit history, for copyright attribution reasons.

5860: 5191: 5160: 4875:. It would be useful, though, if you were able to check over my post-merge work to make sure I've not messed it up...? 4837: 3186: 2921: 2443: 2416: 1940: 224: 3988: 3747:

we could wait a bit longer to give MuZemike another chance to respond. I don't feel very strongly one way or t'other.

3540: 3194: 2884: 1973:

Hi, I've noticed the occasional block given by you to this IP editor that has been coined the 'Megafauna vandal'. See

1609: 473: 5681: 4631: 3991: 3831: 3452: 3362: 2748: 2702: 2168: 1810: 724: 644: 4654: 3290: 3168: 728: 5590: 5187: 4113: 4059: 4004:

I'm assuming I can't tag the Al Maiman article for speedy deletion until Agenceluxe is officially declared a sock.

3524: 3475: 2841: 2591: 2018: 1799:

No problem, and thank you for restoring the article. (And I'd been down that road myself with the article already.

1648: 1507: 1464: 357: 5142: 3823: 2950: 2285: 987: 805: 4977:

Looks OK to me, as far as I can see. A good job done. I suppose the next thing should be to improve the English.

4920: 4868: 3101: 1898: 1832: 1556: 961: 801: 419:

Well I changed my mind, I will continue to revert his original research, since no administrators seem to care at

120: 5123: 5058: 3366: 2633: 1224: 862: 832: 5912:

what about the SPI, that should be closed and denied, Poor James has been accused of a crime he didn't commit--

5350: 4377: 3979: 3047: 2799: 1615:

I am not at all surprised . I somewhat expected as much, but thought I would AGF and give the editor a chance.

1106: 125: 4954: 2595: 1714: 1243: 5040: 4571: 4274: 4229: 4129: 3677: 3286: 3097: 2517:

article was deleted because it was blatantly promotional, but it also did give any indication of notability.

2471: 1594:

Just a heads up, reblocked, for continuing exact same pattern of spam / advertising, and disruptive editing,

5386: 1678: 5805: 5795: 5735: 5730: 5259: 3993:, and Mohammed Al Maiman, which he created without misinformation and then changed after a couple of weeks 3890: 3565: 2330: 2209: 1755: 1708: 1109:. It will be interesting to see how the page develops, if at all. Meanwhile I have userfied the talk page. 529: 372: 315: 4950: 1337: 708:

Hey u have deleted aquarworks where as there are lot of other companies out there.Any particular reason?

5739: 4302: 4170: 4134: 3920:

For an indication as to what sort of evidence of notability is required for a Knowledge article, see the

2996: 2977: 2340: 1586: 1539: 821:

paragraph if it misses its objective, i.e., discuss all parties to the conflict rather than only Israel.

740:

mean "there are many other advertising/promotional articles about companies" it is still irrelevant: see

5116: 5109: 879:

I have read books on and by GBN, and thus have familiarity enough to attempt to fill in missing pieces.

5693: 3817:

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage! Trust me, that idiot will ned up on LTA befoe long.

2638: 1574: 1278: 1074: 38: 5744: 4313:

Players who use a "Proxy" to access our website, forum or game will be automatically banned if caught.

3547: 5827: 5722: 5064:

Actually, I don't think the user did make a good point. Their understanding of mathematics is wrong.

4031: 4024: 3337: 2099: 1726: 1400: 1209: 1131: 1085: 1016: 235: 4555:

PS: My website, www.mgcostello.com, will verify Ken's history and the nature of the cars he built.

5974: 5785: 5646: 5619: 5580: 5548: 5507: 5477: 5397: 5362: 5299: 5250: 5208: 5069: 5023: 4982: 4895: 4853: 4809: 4776: 4744: 4683: 4616: 4607: 4597: 4520: 4466: 4440: 4367: 4291: 4247: 4192: 4089: 4050: 4018: 3970: 3933: 3858: 3752: 3719: 3705: 3643: 3614: 3555: 3406: 3303: 3248: 3219: 3123: 3064: 3025: 2967: 2917: 2857: 2810: 2763: 2717: 2663: 2629: 2560: 2522: 2433: 2363: 2318: 2235: 2176: 2070: 2057: 2038: 1987: 1958: 1886: 1790: 1745: 1660: 1620: 1529: 1481: 1433: 1349: 1297: 1254: 1170: 1114: 1032: 910: 843: 749: 677: 551: 509: 469: 392: 205: 195: 157: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 321: 5756: 5147: 4712: 4701: 4483: 3951: 3944: 3495: 2389: 2186: 2151: 2078: 1580: 1443: 519: 494: 2643:

Hey Games You have recently deleted monitronic college..reasons please?, Is that not vandalism?

1999: 1684: 1491:

I have now added two refernces to this page. And details of notable. Please can you make live

5856: 5165: 4833: 4636: 4389: 4166: 3507: 3262: 3190: 2420: 2195: 1936: 1024: 969: 229: 4584: 2786:. I see you have recently been the third administrator to delete the article. May I suggest 885:

And later, I'll probably need your feedback/QA again to see if my version is up to standards.

5917: 5877: 5839: 5689: 5604: 5218: 4793: 4099: 3678: 3536: 3483: 3458: 3446: 3164: 3146: 3139: 2898: 2891: 2880: 2744: 2727: 2698: 2610: 2603: 2540: 2533: 2303: 2278: 2271: 2133:

I would be grateful if you could, when you find the time, address these points that I raise.

2087: 2014: 2005:. I've notified User:Shirik, who created the filter. Anyway, in case you have any ideas, see 1804: 1568: 1274: 720: 640: 615: 608: 536: 4546:

I would appreciate if you let this version go live and you take the controls of editing it.

4419:

If you want more information, please feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Cheers,

4065: 5848: 5801: 5265: 5183: 5175: 4825: 4559: 4475: 4350: 4262: 4217: 4162: 3921: 3878: 3842: 3775: 3737: 3690: 3518: 3469: 3432: 3329: 3274: 3182: 3085: 2870: 2820: 2736: 2690: 2587: 2579: 2509: 2497:"almost identically the same". It does not contain blatantly promotional language such as " 2484: 2459: 2412: 2358:

I don't understand it either. Must have been some sort of mistake. Thanks for alerting me.

2336: 2143: 1928: 1721: 1503: 1495: 1460: 1452: 1392: 1239: 949: 789: 741: 712: 632: 594: 574: 567: 478: 383:

as a catch-all place for any kind of editing that you think is unacceptable, but it isn't.

292: 133: 4963:

seems to have the complete history. Thanks for providing me with a "security blanket" ;-)

853:

Your comment on lack of sources is true. I will think how to present the issue correctly.

8: 5596: 5318: 5282: 5231: 5224: 5153: 5044: 3657: 3629: 3600: 3577: 3173: 3074: 3043: 2404: 2253: 2219: 1550: 428: 410: 384: 353: 337: 263: 105: 1696: 6008: 5943: 5895: 5752: 5666: 5633: 5103: 5032: 4449:

True. But had you done so, I wouldn't be wasting both my time and yours. C'est la vie.

3818: 3527:) are also socks of his. Do you want to take a look, or should I raise this as a fresh 3233: 3133: 2837: 2773: 812: 770: 763: 703: 222: 4066:

That's the second tab I've had to close because you've finished something I've started

1413:(I have removed the copy of the draft article which was included here. Just a link to 5970: 5852: 5781: 5642: 5615: 5576: 5544: 5503: 5473: 5393: 5358: 5345: 5331: 5295: 5246: 5204: 5138: 5091: 5065: 5054: 5019: 4978: 4891: 4849: 4805: 4772: 4753:

I see - I'm very sorry, I completely misread things. Sorry for the brusque comments.

4740: 4679: 4593: 4567: 4516: 4436: 4363: 4338: 4287: 4270: 4243: 4225: 4188: 4118: 4109: 4085: 4046: 4009: 3966: 3929: 3854: 3748: 3715: 3701: 3652:

Thank you again for your quick and efficient actions. Far better than before. Regards

3639: 3610: 3551: 3402: 3299: 3282: 3244: 3215: 3119: 3093: 3060: 3037: 3021: 3002: 2963: 2913: 2853: 2806: 2759: 2713: 2659: 2625: 2556: 2518: 2467: 2429: 2359: 2314: 2231: 2190: 2172: 2053: 1968: 1954: 1882: 1872: 1842: 1786: 1741: 1616: 1525: 1477: 1429: 1368: 1345: 1333: 1293: 1250: 1166: 1110: 1028: 906: 858: 839: 828: 745: 673: 561: 547: 505: 465: 388: 345: 191: 153: 116: 2313:

No, I didn't. Some sort of error in editing my comment before clicking "save page".

993:

Further to the above, if at all possible, would you be able to pass along a copy of

5913: 5873: 5748: 5707: 5600: 5372: 4863:

Related to this, there's another bit of copy-and-pasting that I'm about to fix up:

4627: 4454: 4424: 4397: 4378: 3886: 3532: 3479: 3420: 3390: 3160: 2984: 2946: 2926: 2876: 2795: 2740: 2694: 2680: 2644: 2490: 2400: 2298: 2265: 2083: 2010: 1820: 1774: 1425: 1214: 1136: 1090: 532: 450: 443: 602: 5565: 5532: 5489: 5430: 5414: 5382: 4993: 4964: 4905: 4876: 4661: 4315: 4213:

Which part of it was advertising? I fixed the article and it was still deleted.

4070: 3838: 3771: 3733: 3686: 3546:

It is 100% obvious that these are the same person. 86.173.33.234 even says so in

3514: 3465: 3006: 2377: 2348: 2248:Ок, I agree to delete this article until the technology will be world famous ;-) 1499: 1456: 1316: 1235: 1156: 1055: 1002: 983: 328: 5770: 3700:

Yes, I think under the circumstances unblocking is reasonable. Please go ahead.

2034:

would also be helpful.) Another thing worth considering is to give an immediate

1292:. However, in brief, my answer is that I never said that "policy was violated". 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5310: 5274: 4642: 4471:

hello, i am just wondering why a few things i have updated have been removed?

4410:

Please note that in certain circumstances it is not only acceptable, but it is

3910: 3802: 3793: 3653: 3625: 3596: 3573: 2787: 1858: 1846: 1636: 1605: 932: 925: 895: 424: 406: 349: 5641:

Do you? Why? In what way do you disagree with the reason I gave for the move?

5357:

certainly won't quarrel with you over a block that I am borderline on myself.

2335:

Hello! I do not understand your revert. I'm currently correcting articles, as

1066: 375:

to which you linked, you will see several suggestions, including reporting at

6004: 5939: 5891: 5726: 5662: 5629: 5502:

Yeah, I should damned well think so. Good to see you've realised who's boss.

5464:

We really must stop bumping into one another like this. It's really too much.

5200: 4754: 4720: 4705: 4588: 4512: 4508: 4401: 4382: 3729: 3528: 3229: 3207: 3203: 3115: 3111: 2783: 2570: 2448:

Hi There, you deleted my created page about the open-source product I offer.

2189:

later today, and post any additional thoughts I may have on the subject. ---

2049: 2026: 1521: 1315:

May I ask why you have twice removed the alterations I have done to the site

1229: 1217: 1206: 1139: 1128: 1093: 1082: 215: 180: 47: 17: 5969:

status|CUrequest}} at the top of the SPI page by {{SPI case status|close}}.

5340: 5134: 5087: 5050: 4665: 4646: 4358: 4105: 4005: 3997: 3925: 3278: 3211: 3089: 2513: 1364: 1329: 1307: 521: 479: 112: 868:

Global Business Network (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance)

5703: 5079: 4890:

be OK. Drop me a message here when you've done it, and I'll have a look.

4704:, it looks as though you attempted to unblock half of a range blocked by 4623: 4450: 4420: 3416: 3386: 3075: 2791: 1815: 1769: 1195: 338: 4540:

the article that is contentious - everything is correct and verifiable.

4407:

As it happens, you have done the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.

5378: 4124: 1720:. Same MO on the same kinds of articles. Action needed ASAP. Thanks. - 1152: 1051: 998: 979: 324: 5766: 4612:

Hi. You didn't need to add NOINDEX to the Bitcoin draft article - the

4583:

The last version of the article was clearly very closely modelled on

1854: 1631: 1600: 485: 5628:

I absolutely protest the move of this article and its Talk page. --

882:

Could you undo the delete so I have material to work with/ work on?

5718: 5264:

Are you sure that there is very little independent coverage of the

1764: 1757: 1202: 1124: 1078: 175: 5203:

either by their authors or by the people that are their subjects.

3984:

This time using the name Agenceluxe. He's edited Mister World 2010

3714:

Since you seem to be busy on other things, I will unblock myself.

5816:

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make

5488:

Next time I do CSD stuff I'll check what you're up to first. ;-)

672:

I don't need to read it - I am willing to take your word for it.

4104:

Thanks for doing the merge & move along with the deletions.

5083: 974:

Hi! I was just wondering if you would be willing to userfy the

817:

Is it neutral to discuss only the legality of Israeli actions?

653:

List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 revert

4357:

satisfy the notability guidelines then check the guideline on

1871:

in user space. If you take your own advice to "take a look at

597:

comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:51, 15 September 2010 58.71.79.8

1524:, but I will not tag the article for deletion at the moment. 504:

I had actually already done this before seeing this message.

5470:

End of old edit-conflicted post, and now back to the present

5241: