User talk:JBW

This account was previously known as JamesBWatson, but was renamed to JBW on 19 September 2019. Neither James nor Watson is my real name.

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

IP Block: 144.122.0.0/16

Hi! 144.122.0.0/16 IP block was blocked for 3 years from October 27, 2023. I kindly ask either removing this block, or giving IP exemption to the user names our user group (wikimedia community user group Türkiye) so that those users can make changes. Basak (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Basak: The block is anon only, so it shouldn't affect anyone with an account. I have removed the block on account creation for now. Let me know whether that solves your problem. JBW (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I informed the users. Since it's a school IP, they will try tomorrow morning the earliest. I will let you know when i hear from the users. Thanks a lot.Basak (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Angelic Devil

(cringe) I know what you mean, but they are just out of options. Hopefully, their will to edit will force them to adapt. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

And sadly, I thought they had a better language. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Yes, I too was surprised by the lack of a better language, but maybe where they live education is conducted in English. JBW (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #81839

You are a saint. A saint. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Errm, what? Even if I were immodest enough to believe that (which, unfortunately, I'm not) I don't see how it comes out of the conversation you linked to. JBW (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess compared to the thoughts I had . . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, gah. I guess their response there sums up as not them but everyone else.😟 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Removed text

Hi @JBW, you just removed some text from User_talk:Goran_tek-en#c-Goran_tek-en-20231203150400-Bonus, how so? It was not my text but it was for me, did the writer copy it from some book or what, thankful for explanation. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. JBW (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

List of Roman gentes

I'd like to apologize for my intemperate language earlier. The page had been vandalized four times in the previous two days, and another vandal on the Cyclops article was gaming the system by accusing an admin of abusing his power by reverting nonsense, changing names each time—so I was clearly in the mindset of stopping vandalism when I came across your edits. And I did spot one instance of vandalism that I'd previously missed, and deleted it. So you were correct that vandals do add things, although I do catch them nearly all of the time.

I want to reassure you that this list is carefully patrolled—it's on my watchlist because I created the original version, and either created or edited all but a few of the linked articles, all of which are documented. Some could be better—I started working on this project in 2009 or 2010, when I was still fairly new to Wikipedia, so time and experience have shown me a number of ways to improve articles on Roman gentes, and I sometimes go back and make small fixes or large overhauls on the older ones.

Some of the redlinks that you deleted en masse earlier were indeed added at a period when the list was being heavily vandalized, but I'm quite certain that I checked them all to see which were genuine nomina. It's possible that I missed one or two, but a number of redlinks—mainly under 'V', as I was progressing down the alphabet beginning with 'A', and trying to finish all of the articles under each letter before moving on to the next one—were added by me. I stopped adding more because I wanted to see any new links appear on my watchlist, and I realized that if people started one on a redlink I'd added, I wouldn't see it. But I didn't delete the redlinks that other people added as long as I could verify that they were proper nomina, for which an article could be created down the line.

If I get back to the project in the next few months, my goal is to go through the V's, which are mostly redlinks based on entries in the DGRBM that I scouted ahead of time, probably with a few others I ran across in other sources. Then I'll start again with the redlinks in 'A'. At that point, I would delete any that didn't appear substantial enough to support an article, but as I said, I think all of the current redlinks will.

The easiest way to check is using the Clauss-Slaby Datenbank. That doesn't include most persons known from history or Roman literature; they're generally in the DGRBM, PW, or PIR. But it does include hundreds of published books, journals, and other literature about Roman epigraphy. The search feature can take a bit of getting used to—but once you know how to search the database, you can sometimes find several dozen persons under a given name—hundreds for the better-known gentes, which is why most of those don't have a lot of entries known solely from epigraphic sources!

For instance, take the Anquirinnia gens. Searching for partial matches under "Anquirin..." (because I have to guess that the 'n' might not always be doubled, and we could have masculine or feminine endings in the nominative, accusative, genetive, or dative, singular or plural) brings up two inscriptions, which would probably not be enough for an article—except that six different Anquirinni are mentioned in those two inscriptions! Which would be enough for at least a short article listing them, with what little is known about them from those inscriptions and the publications including them (two sources are cited). From this we know that there was such a gens, and that the nomen is not the product of fantasy.

Most of the redlinked names will have more persons than this; I used Anquirinnia as an example, because it's an unusual name that stuck in my mind when I saw it had been deleted. In instances where I can find only one or two names, or perhaps just one with a praenomen (which helps us determine that the following name is a nomen gentilicium), I may add the name to the list of Roman nomina instead, and cite the sources for the inscriptions, instead of creating an article where those works would be cited.

I hope that now you've had a chance to see how this list is curated and why the redlinks exist where and how they do, you'll be satisfied with the state of the list as it currently stands. I'm not the only one working on Roman gentes; StarTrekker and one or two other people are known to create articles, and several other editors add biographical article links to the existing ones. WP:CGR isn't as active as it once was, but we still have a number of dedicated editors, and while we don't agree on everything, we do keep a close eye on our articles to make sure that they're not vandalized or filled with nonsense. P Aculeius (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Following the removal of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mohammad_Mansourmoghaddam

Dear JBW Everyone introduces themselves in a way, so my introduction is a scientific character! I have my own website as well as a Google referral! but did you see a resume file or a link to my social pages on that page? Except a few lines and a picture? Please return the page. My intention was not to advertise, I want to be active on Wikipedia (after a long time), it was just a brief introduction without any additional advertising or references! Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam: If you want to be an active editor on Wikipedia, then contribute to the writing of this encyclopedia. We have a backlog of tasks where you could help out. Wikipedia is not a social networking site for you to post your thoughts or converse with other editors. If you actively edit here, then your user page could tell us about your editing per WP:UP. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear Chris (@Chris troutman)

I have the right to introduce myself on my user page, as long as there is no advertisement and there is no content like a social network. I only wrote two lines about myself and included a photo, and the whole page was removed! I didn't include any links to sites or social media outside of Wikipedia, does that mean social networking or thoughts or converse? Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You have made no other mainspace edits to this wiki, so it seems like you are not really here to write the encyclopedia and hence, lines on your userpage seem to violate WP:UP#NOT. And since you don't own this website, you should probably ease off on foolish claims about your rights. Wikipedia is not about your userpage, so why is that the single focus of your editing? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam: Unfortunately, it is not possible to tell for certain by looking at a new user page such as yours whether it has been created by a new editor who is here to contribute to the encyclopaedia but happens to have chosen to start by creating a page announcing who they are, or by someone whose purpose is to use Wikipedia to publicise themselves. It is therefore necessary to make a judgement, and of course judgements can sometimes be wrong. However, there are various pointers which can give clues as to the nature of the situation, and naturally the more such pointers are all pointing the same way, the more one is inclined to be confident of which is more likely to be correct. Among other pointers are the following. Only a very small proportion of editors who are here to contribute to the encyclopaedia create a user page as a first step; a large proportion of editors who are here to use Wikipedia as a host for a personal web page do so. Scarcely any (not just not many) editors who are here to contribute to the encyclopaedia start by uploading a photograph to put on their user pages; a significant proportion of editors who are here to use Wikipedia as a host for a personal web page do so. I have rarely if ever seen an editor who is here to contribute to the encyclopaedia start off with a user page in which they announce what they think are their good qualities, such as telling us what "skills" they think they have; many editors who are here to publicise themselves do so. I could give more, but that's probably enough to give you an impression. The material that you wrote telling us about what you regard as your "skills" very much looked like self-promotion, but the rest would not be particularly unsuitable in a user page for an established active contributor. I suggest that when you have become significantly active as an editor, and made some significant contributions, you may like to come back to me and ask me to reconsider the situation. JBW (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam: I wrote the message above under the impression that I was dealing with a new editor who had no experience of hiw Wikipedia works, and who, despite appearances to the contrary, might possibly genuinely be here to contribute neutrally to the encyclopaedia, not to promote himself. However, I subsequently discovered that you have had another account for years, and that almost every edit you have been made has concerned yourself, whether by posting information about yourself into articles, by putting references to you own work into articles, by creating a user page which seeks to tell us about what you regard as your skills, or otherwise. It is clear that you are here to publicise and promote yourself, and your denials above were disingenuous. JBW (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your explanation; But again, you have premature judgment, because 1) as I said earlier, I came to Wikipedia for a new start, 2) the mentioned account (even if I wanted to use it again) is for Wikipedia in another language and I don't want to use it again. 3) If you search my name, you will find that I (honestly) don't need to advertise (and of course, I don't see it moral in the encyclopedia space), so just a few lines about the person who is going to write his articles and subsequent editions. I wrote for everyone to see (because I had planned to write specialized articles on new fields of remote sensing and therefore it would be better for everyone to see that it was written by an expert), but you considered it an advertisement and unfortunately, you still believe that it should be deleted. 4) I am surprised that you say that those about 500 edits were related to me!, while only the last few (with the aim of completing specialized topics) were from my scientific articles and (again) not advertisements (If an expert presents his published scientific opinion, should he be condemned with the judgment of "advertisement for himself"? In my opinion, this was not fair to me!).

  I'm sorry that the prejudices of other people's vandalism have affected your view of me and, at least for now, much of my motivation and enthusiasm has been lost with this welcome to the English Wikipedia. Thanks and best wishes. Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam: No, you brought discredit upon yourself. Per Wikipedia:Expert editors, you need to stay away from trying to prove your outside knowledge, asserting credentials, or citing your own work. If you want to edit the remote sensing article, go ahead. Your ability to improve the article is what we judge, not who you are in real life. Honestly, if yours is a fresh start account, you can just forget about your prior account. You don't want to reveal too much and we don't care. Please remember that Randy in Boise edits here, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hey; what's wrong with you? Why are you attacking me with such harsh tone every time? Instead of attacking, it is better to tell where my words or actions were immoral or abusive? Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  All I found out is that the part I mentioned under "skills" was wrong and was considered an advertisement and this was not intentional, and if I had been warned I would have removed it, I don't know if you are one of the admins or not. But it is not appropriate to speak like that, while I try to explain everything clearly and without bad intentions (maybe you misunderstood me based on a wrong judgment, don't you think?) Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  You have raised a number of points there. I shall address two of them.

1. Referring to your deleted user page, I said "... but the rest would not be particularly unsuitable in a user page for an established active contributor". I wrote that in the belief that I was addressing a new editor, and I wished to reduce the negative impact of what I said. Otherwise I might have said something more like "... but the rest would perhaps be tolerable as a small part of a user page for an established active contributor". Nevertheless, my invitation to ask me to reconsider when you have become significantly active as an editor, and made some significant contributions still stands, though I intended in the context for it to be clear that I meant that those contributions should be predominantly not about yourself. Obviously, an assessment of how far your contributions are predominantly not about yourself will take into consideration all of your editing, including that which you have already done.
2. You refer to 500 edits. I assume you are referring to all your editing, on several Wikimedia projects, but only editing of English Wikipedia concerns me. Your other account on Wikipedia has made 29 edits. Of those, 2 were article edits which did not, as far as I could see, relate to yourself; the other 27 were all connected to yourself, whether in articles, userspace, or user talk.

• One more thought. Since your main purpose here is to contribute to the encyclopaedia, not to write about yourself, why are you battling so hard to be able to restore a page about yourself? Why is it so important to you? JBW (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Aha, Now I understand why there was suspicion about my previous edits, because only a few of my English edits were visible to you, as I mentioned before, that account was in another language, no problem.

  No, with this accusation, I don't intend to make a user page like that anymore, because there has been a lack of trust in me among the administrators, and it is useless. So, I will try to contribute for now until later... (although, at the first it was just a question and explained about not advertising and unfortunately it turned into a challenge and argue with me)

  Thank you for your time and response and best wishes. Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

• Ganesha811
• JPxG

• Ajpolino
• Lourdes
• Mairi
• RockMFR
• Somno
• WilyD

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Oversight changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS

An editor who only logs in to make problematic original research edits has modified your talk page comments to change their meaning. See here: [1]. This vandalism has remained in place for close to three years. I was going to revert it and take it to ANI myself but then I noticed you're an admin and might be able to take an appropriate course of action yourself. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: Thank you for telling me. I have reverted the talk page edit you mentioned, and I have watch-listed their talk page and made a note to check their contributions from time to time. I'm not sure whether there's much else that can usefully be done. A block might help, but it might not; a person who so rarely edits would probably not find it too much of an inconvenience to have to wait next time they want to edit long enough to have a chance to create an account on another device, and to allow any autoblock to expire. If so, the main effect of the block might be to cause further editing to take place on another account that we don't know about and therefore can't watch. My feeling is that, with edits being so few and far between, it may be better to just rely on watching, and reverting each one when it happens. I will give the person a warning about changing other editors' talk page messages, however, and if they do it again I will reconsider the situation. JBW (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Another FYE31 sock

User:IE06V21* started their account today and immediately started replacing images on the city council district articles to the same "No image" images and replacing the other Marqueece Harris-Dawson image back to the one FYE31 uploaded. Uses the same "if there is any questions let me know" phrase in their edits. reppop^talk 02:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry a agreed with FYE View am no a FYE IE06V21* (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Why are you acusing me of being FYE31 reppop^talk IE06V21* (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi JBW I am not FYE I only agreed with his opinon I dont know why reppop is acusing me of being FYE31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IE06V21* (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This IP

I don't know the history here, but based on latest edit [2], maybe block shouldn't be partial. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for calling my attention to this. I've checked the recent editing history of the range. The ratio of constructive to unconstructive edits is high enough to make me doubtful about putting a total block on so large a range, but I've found that a large proportion of the vandalism has been from the smaller range 78.86.0.0/18, so I have blocked that. I may have another look when I have more time, to see whether there are any other subranges which could be blocked. Also, of course, please let me know if you see any more that you think needs to be dealt with. JBW (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Grae Cleugh

Hi JWB Seasons Greetings you deleted a page I requested created. I could not create the page myself because I am blocked from editing. I should add the reason for my Dronebogus1 block was trying to remove my name from a Wikipedia article, starting an edit war. I should add my name was eventually (it took ten years) removed from the Wikipedia page following a legal request after the source article in a major newspaper was amended, but my block, and sock history has not been deleted despite a successful outcome in my favor, so I requested Colleagues create Grae Cleugh, and Playwrights' Studio Scotland, subjects clos to my heart.

Could you spare 5 minutes of your time to undelete/fix/republish Grae Cleugh, as he is an Olivier Award winning graduate of RCS. He won an Olivier award in 20002 for his debut play f*cking games 2002 Laurence Olivier Awards, Laurence Olivier Award for Most Promising Playwright, and https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/author/grae-cleugh/

I made an article request at articles for creation. 81.147.111.139 (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)