Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 15:11, 26 January 2011 (Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 24.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For the time being I will not be as active on Misplaced Pages as usual. I will try to check for talk page messages frequently and to respond to them if necessary, and to deal with matters in progress, but I am likely to do very little administrative work for a while. I am very unlikely to respond to requests to take action in cases completely new to me, especially if such action would require a significant amount of my time.

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, unless you request otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. Thanks.

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 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

For the time being I will not be as active on Misplaced Pages as usual. I will try to check for talk page messages frequently and to respond to them if necessary, and to deal with matters in progress, but I am likely to do very little administrative work for a while.

Chimpanzee

Hadn't thought about removing that from the edit history, great idea, thanks! --Crusio (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your willingness to look through what had become a pretty convoluted issue. I also appreciate having another chance. Thanks for believing in me. Peacewashlove (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hammarplast

I made the db-hoax assumption off of the claim "last day. the owner , ceo , and financil director of starbucks Howard Schultz worked there . nowadays people think that hammarsplast is changed to starbucks but they are wrong." Wasn't really based on the verifiability of the subject.--v/r - TP 20:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's an appallingly badly written article, and needs to be either completely rewritten or deleted. Some of what it says is unverifiable and perhaps wrong (e.g. "nowadays people think..." What people think it? Where is the evidence?). However, there is a basic layer of true facts, so I think it is just very badly written (probably by a child) rather than being deliberately lies, so I do not think it can be regarded as a hoax. As the article stands it qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but I am not 100% happy about deleting it on those grounds as I think evidence of notability may perhaps be out there somewhere. If you choose to tag it for A7 I will neither delete it nor decline the nomination, as I am borderline, so it will be up to another admin. Alternatively if you would like to PROD the article I will certainly not contest it, unless of course someone comes along and dramatically improves the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's alright, if it's borderline then I tend to leave on the inclusionist side (scary for a CSD tagger to say) so I'll leave it alone. It'll either improve or be discovered and deleted another day. I just wanted to explain why I tagged it.--v/r - TP 20:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:85.12.88.17

Re. your saying previously, repeatedly explained to you wastes people's time (whether in unblock requests, "helpme" requests, or otherwise). Your talk page access will be revoked if you do it again. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC) - see - it might be time for that now. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Done. Thanks for pointing this out. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Deletion of Cardiovascular Credentialing International

Dear JamesBWatson,

I see that a page I created a while back (Cardiovascular Credentialing International) was deleted and I would like to have it reinstated as I am not only about to add new information, but I am also seeing more and more Misplaced Pages pages referencing Cardiovascular Credentialing International (CCI).

What is the process of getting this page reinstated?

Best wishes,

RalGuy22 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Aaron White Executive Director CCI

1. If you created the article can you explain why you are now editing from a different account? Also, please declare exactly what other accounts you have used. Unfortunately if you don't there is a likelihood that people will suspect that you are using another account for dishonest purposes, so a full disclosure is in your own interests.
2. Since you created the article the first time, you will be aware that the reason given for deletion ("Article that has no meaningful, substantive content") was perfectly valid, and since you are aware how little content it had I wonder what purpose you think would be served by restoring it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response back. As for your 1st question. It was a few years ago that I made the CCI page, but I could not for the life of me this morning remember what username or password I had. I don't even know if I am doing this reply correctly as this is my first time using the "talk" feature. As for the validity of the deletion, I don't dispute that. You are correct that the amount of information was small, but I do want to update the page with additional information and we are integrating the Misplaced Pages page into our new communication plan. Thanks, Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalGuy22 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer to "I don't even know if I am doing this reply correctly as this is my first time using the talk feature", yes you are doing fine. There are just two small points that may be useful to you: (1) You should end any message you write on a talk page with four tildes (i.e. ~~~~). This will be automatically replaced by a signature, which shows who wrote it, and also gives a link to your talk page, which is very useful if anyone wants to get back to you. (2) The usual convention is that if your message is a response to another one, then you put a colon at the start of the line. This is displayed as an indentation of your comment. A response to that indented message is started with two colons, and indented further. This is not important in a brief exchange of two or three messages, but it can be very useful in keeping track of things if and when you ever find yourself participating in longer discussions.

If it was a few years ago that you created the article then it must have been under some other title than "Cardiovascular Credentialing International", as that was created just over 3 months ago. The full and complete text of the article was "your cardio is very,very important", so perhaps you can see why I wrote "I wonder what purpose you think would be served by restoring it". If you can remember what title you used for your article then it will be possible to check whether it has been deleted, and if so what it originally contained. Also, if you had seen the other edits of the editor who created that article you would realise why I was perhaps a little curt in my earlier comment.

I think I have covered what needs to be said in answer to your query, but I think it only fair to also give you a warning which may save you a lot of wasted time and work. Since you work for the company, you will have a distinct conflict of interest in writing about it. Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages writing about your own company, and Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Organizations is worth looking at. In addition, your reference to "integrating the Misplaced Pages page into our new communication plan" suggests that your intention is to use the Misplaced Pages article as promotion for your company, which is against Misplaced Pages's policy, and any article which appears to be written for promotion is likely to be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I wonder if it is possible whatever was posted 3 months ago overwrote what I had done years ago? If so, I assume it is long gone.

We are not planning to use Misplaced Pages as a promotion for CCI, but want to allow the general public to have access to information and history of the organization. For instance, a patient has an echocardiogram done and notices a CCI certificate on the wall. They then want to learn more about this credential their physician or sonographer has earned to see how it relates to their care. Is this acceptable? I see a number of other not-for-profit, independent, credentialing agencies (in related fields) have a[REDACTED] definition. Thanks, this has been very helpful. RalGuy22 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On the question of whatever was posted 3 months ago overwrote what you had done years ago, the answer is that there is always a record of what went before. I have known cases where several articles with the same title have successfully been created and deleted one after another over the course of several years, and it is still possible for anyone to see the deletion log showing this has happened, and for administrators to look deeper and see the details of the different creations. In this case the record shows only one page of this title has ever existed. I am confident you must have created it under a different title. I have checked a few obvious possibilities, such as Cardiovascular Credentialing and Cardiovascular credentialing international (without capitals) but not found it. As for your other question, there is nothing wrong in principal with writing an article such as you suggest, though I personally would not encourage you to do so because of the conflict of interest issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal again...

The Indonesian misinformation vandal has reared his ugly head again. The address he used this time is 114.79.7.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and he seems to have now infiltrated Pokemon territory. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: The address is part of the 114.79.0.0/21 range. The block on the said range just expired yesterday. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Move request

Hi James. I wonder if I could prevail on you to do a move request close as an uninvolved party at Talk:Petroc College. It's been up for 7 days, and I think a consensus has been reached. How you close it is up to you. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Renamed user 1499

WP:DONTBITE! I should have benefited from WP:AGF, as well. With respect to the entry that I've desisted from (in other words, I have no intention of reposting), it was notable (based on Wall Street Journal references) and contained basic information. Did you really need to WP:Block me indefinitely for trying (in good faith) to relaunch it? Swim900 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" is a misnomer: it really means "presume good faith", i.e. assume good faith until there is evidence to the contrary. You had received three warnings,(not from me) and had continued to make spam edits, ignoring those warnings until you were blocked. When the article you created was deleted you recreated it under a different title. I am perfectly willing to believe that the first creation was done in good faith, under the common misapprehension that "anyone can edit Misplaced Pages" means "anyone can edit Misplaced Pages in any way they like, including using it as a free advertising service". Although this view is mistaken, I am well aware that large numbers of people sincerely believe that it is Misplaced Pages's policy, and I fully accept that editors frequently come here in all good faith to advertise or promote their business, charity, garage band, self, etc etc, with no intention of doing anything wrong. However, to believe that you were still suffering from that misunderstanding after you had been informed that advertising was not acceptable and the article you created had been deleted requires assuming more than just good faith. It was perfectly clear that your only purpose on Misplaced Pages was promotion of your company. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My article was QP:SD before I even knew what that meant, much less how to respond or appeal that. Furthermore, the loophole in WP:A7 seemed to fit my article precisely (regarding WP:Notability) so I made significant effort to establish WP:Notability during one of my later edits; because of that loophole I struggled to accept what seemed capricious. I wasn't aware either that you could delete and then protect from creation a page. Though written from an inappropriate perspective (WP:Conflict_of_interest) my website was one of the few advertisements that falls under WP:Notable. Swim900 (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am genuinely sorry that you feel you have been wrongly treated. It seemed to me that your only purpose was promotion, and that you were ignoring warnings, but it is evident from what you say that that was not the way you perceived it. You are back now, with a new account, and I hope things go more smoothly for you in the future. Please do feel welcome to come here to ask for advice or help in the future. I do know that Misplaced Pages can be perplexing and intimidating for newcomers (yes, I really do, because that's how I found it when I first came here), and although I have unfortuantely contributed to a bad early experience for you, I am willing to do what I can to help you have a better experience from now on. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

fire accident deletion

hai Mr.Watson,

This is Sandeep. I have posted an article on fire accident. But it has been deleted . Can i know d reason please?

Regards, sandeep Sand.chinni (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The page did not appear to be written as an encyclopaedia article, which led Timneu22 to view it as a test page, and to request speedy deletion. In addition, the content of the article was a direct copy of an article from the Deccan Chronicle, making it a copyright infringement. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Warwick Investment Forum

Hello, having read the Misplaced Pages guidelines I cannot understand why the WIF page was deleted. Please may you allow me to repost it as there is no intention to break or bend any[REDACTED] rules in doing so.

Sincerely,

Srijan Katyal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srijkatyal (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you sincerely could not see that the article was written in purely promotional terms then I can only assume that you are so closely involved with the subject that you are unable to stand back and see it from the detached viewpoint of an outsider. This is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing by anyone with a personal involvement in a subject. To illustrate teh matter, here are two sentences from the article:

The Warwick Investment Forum was birthed out of a strong desire to facilitate interaction and the sharing of ideas, right in the middle of the Great Credit Crisis. Our aim is to establish an internationally recognised first-class forum on current issues within the investment and financial sector.

The whole article was written entirely in such terms. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, I am peter Albrecht von Preussen and I saw that you were so kind and corrected some entries. I would like to know if you could help me to setup the missing pages for my father, Grandfather and myself for correct chronologie. I have to contact my parents to get the name of my fathers mother as she passed away in 1939. Thank you1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peamm2009 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what help you want, but you are welcome to let me know, and I will consider whether I think I can help. You should have a look at Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guideline before doing any more editing relating to your own family. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied on Darleen Gruben's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Hopkins

I saw that my article about my god Peter Hopkins, whom we all worship where I come from,had been deleted and I wondered why because It was in no way finished and I you had allowed me to continue working on it then you would have seen how significant this person is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiedwi (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it that is supposed to be a joke. Try using Facebook or MySpace. Misplaced Pages is not for this sort of thing. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for your feedback. I read the guidlines on conflict of interesst and I can assure you that I have only one goal and that is the unbiased family history. My question for you was on how I can create my own page under these guidlines and how pages for my grandfather and father could be created. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peamm2009 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

request for a new page..

hello sir i was trying to create a page for my school anglo arabic sr. sec. school n that page was deleted i m new on[REDACTED] can u please tell me how to make a valid page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.abdullahali (talk • contribs) 06:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Md.abdullahali JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Message from Universalstonecutter

This not spam -

please follow the rules for Quit deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Watchlist http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Universalstonecutter

January 2011

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to the page So Goes My Love do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This statement is false -Quaity article require external links and reference your have violate the base rules of wiki you must permit edits follow deletion rules I have been on this website for many years The five pillars of Misplaced Pages please reread the late two about ownership of a page auto delection is not fair to menmbers - you should discuss statements which are incorrect

Dennis Dickens universalstoinecutter2002@yahoo.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalstonecutter (talk • contribs) 11:45, 25 January 2011

Thank you for that message. There are, unfortunately, many parts of it which I don't understand, but your main point seems to be that some links which you added to So Goes My Love were valid and should not have been removed. I have restored the links in question. It does help to give an edit summary to indicate the nature of your edit, especially when you are adding links to sites such as flickr, as such links are very often unconstructive, and with no explanation of the edit it can be very difficult to see what is going on. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Dickens please read the external links they contain research materials and references to the books and website that have published my research photo links can validate the facts i placed on IMDB Triva etc universalstoinecutter2002@yahoo.com http://picasaweb.google.com/home http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalstonecutter/ www.theatrecrafts.com/studiotourforum/viewtopic.php?p=572 http://www.thestudiotour.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=247 http://www.thestudiotour.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=719 http://www.thestudiotour.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=643&view=previous http://www.thestudiotour.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=959

1. I am removing the duplicate copy of material from your last post here. Please don't duplicate posts, as it makes this page difficult to follow.
2. I don't understand the relevance of the links you give here at all. Perhaps you would like to clarify your point. However, since, a I mentioned above, I have already restored the links to the article, I am not sure what further point could be relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Joe Day (footballer)

Hello. You recently deleted the page Joe Day (footballer) because its PROD has expired. While the prod was ongoing, I noticed that the article had been created at its creator's user talk page User talk:MadDogRDFC, and moved to mainspace from there, so the history of that user talk had moved with it to the history of Joe Day (footballer). I left an explanatory note for the reviewing admin on the prod notice, to ask them that when they dealt with the prod, please to make sure the talk page history got back where it belonged. Obviously now the article's gone, I can't link to a diff, but did you not spot the note? or had someone removed it without me noticing? Anyway, assuming it's possible, please could you or someone retrieve the user's talk page history from the deleted article history. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for pointing this out. Your explanatory note had been removed by another editor. I have now restored the legitimate talk page history. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Editorial assistance

I see that you are listed on the page for editorial assistance.  is the most recent edit if you can take a look at a two-editor dispute.  After six weeks, the sum of the other editor's edits seems to me to have only the goal of ignoring dispute resolution.  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.152 (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I decided to look into this, despite having little time now to spend on Misplaced Pages. I found it a tortuous and time consuming task, with need to keep following links from one conversation in one place to another elsewhere in order to try to find out what the whole issue was about. It would have helped had you provided more information.

You have been continually posting about an issue concerning Johnuniq over a period of nearly a month and a half. As far as it is possible to make out the initial cause of this was a brief comment from Johnuniq on 14 December 2010 on an article talk page, pointing out that some comments there did not seem to be concerned with a proposal fro improving the article (which is the purpose of an article's talk page). Johnuniq has very patiently tried to respond to your continuing posts, despite having considerable difficulty understanding what you have been saying. Johnuniq has time and time again asked for clarification, as often it is difficult or impossible to determine what your point is: you clearly have some sort of difficulty in communicating, and I too have found your points extremely difficult to follow. You have raised the issue at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. (Discussion preserved here.) In that discussion another editor wrote "If three editors tell you here that they don't understand what point you are making, it should be a good indicator to you that the point you are making is not clear." You do not seem to have grasped that point,a s you have come to me without making any effort to clarify your meaning.

My conclusions are as follows:

1. It seems that the whole thing is a reaction to one brief and perfectly innocuous talk page post about six weeks ago. While it is not entirely clear what it is you are objecting to, it does seem that continuing this battle for so long is a gross over-reaction to a minor incident.
2. Very often the best method of dispute resolution is to realise that the issue at stake is not worth more of your time and trouble, and to simply leave it. That must surely be so in this case, after such a long time. You have come to me to ask for help with dispute resolution, and that is my advice. If you are willing to take that advice then no more needs to be said on the issue, and the rest of my comments after here are irrelevant.
3. If you are not willing to take that advice then I have to tell you that your persistence with this issue has become harassment, even if you sincerely do not intend it that way. I note the following comment made by CliffC in the Witiquette alert discussion: "John has shown great patience and forbearance in responding to them in the face of the IP's refusal, or inability, to explain just exactly what he wants. I have considered advising John to just delete such messages as they appear, rather than waste time responding to them, but that might create even more distractions like this one".
4. Your continual posts on this were described in the Witiquette alert discussion as "disruptive", and I fully agree.
5. Johnuniq has been far more patient than most editors would have been under the circumstances, but there is no reason why he should be subjected to more of this harassment. As far back as 28 December 2010 he wrote "I think we are nearing the end of our discussion."
6. Several editors responded to your Witiquette alert, and you received no support from any of them. Instead of accepting that consensus is against you, you have decided to forum shop by coming to me. I concur with the views expressed by all the editors apart from you at that discussion. Your further step in seeking support has therefore resulted in an even greater consensus against you.
7. Please drop this issue, and leave Johnuniq alone. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Welcome

Dear JBW

Thank you for your welcome. It is appreciated as I am new to this. Possibly, like yourself, I will get sucked in to spending too much time editing and will welcome your guidance in amends that I make/would like to make. There are many minor and some major errors and incorrect or misinformed pieces of information on the encyclopedia. I use Misplaced Pages daily. I think it a wonderful resource and would like to do my bit to improve it for all.

Regards

Mythbuster121 Mythbuster121 (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

20:03, 24 September 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "TMNT Robots" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: WP:OR)

Hello,

My name is John, and I am an aspiring designer for a comic book based table top game, and was wondering if there was any way that this page could be undeleted or replaced. It would be a great help in gathering information expediently, as well as do a great service to the comic book enthusiast and nerd community. Information on the subject is relatively easy to find, though not with proper citations and bibliographies included. If need be I am more than willing to contribute to an edited or entirely new page, but am new to using Misplaced Pages to this extent and require assistance.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallMeMOTO (talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Help on Survivor: Redemption Island

I don't know if Survivor is your cup of tea, but I need on a certain user Gbold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and his edits on the article I mentioned. He was already warned about adding unsourced info into said article, but he seems to reinstate his edits. His latest now has a source, but I don't think it's reliable (and it's in the External Links section as well). Can you help on this guy. BTW, I gave him a level 3 warning, but afterwards, he "reverted" my revert after that. But I don't want to 3RR on the guy. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For the time being I will not be as active on Misplaced Pages as usual. I will try to check for talk page messages frequently and to respond to them if necessary, and to deal with matters in progress, but I am likely to do very little administrative work for a while. I am very unlikely to respond to requests to take action in cases completely new to me, especially if such action would require a significant amount of my time.