User talk:JBW

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.

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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"11:48, 16 March 2023 JBW talk contribs deleted page ISO/IEC 29110 (G12: copyright infringement of http://www.cetic.be/Software-lifecycle-for-Very-Small &ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/322059955_Applying_Software_Engineering_Standards_in_Very_Small_Entities_From_Startups_to_Grownups Copyright infringing text has been present since the creation of the article"

The copyright of ISO standards is owned by ISO (www.iso.org)no one else can claim copyright. The deleted article was published by the editors of the ISO 29110 series and members of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7/WG24 to inform and help the VSEs. The page must be restored , the cancellation is not justified. SWSYeng (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SWSYeng: I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Do you mean that copyright in all or part of the deleted text is owned by the ISO? If so, far from being a reason why the article should be restored, it is a reason why it must not be restored, as the ISO's copyright statement, as seen at https://www.iso.org/copyright.html, says "All content on ISO Online is copyright protected. The copyright is owned by ISO. Any use of the content, including copying of it in whole or in part, for example to another Internet site, is prohibited and would require written permission from ISO. All ISO publications are also protected by copyright. The copyright ownership of ISO is clearly indicated on every ISO publication. Any unauthorized use such as copying, scanning or distribution is prohibited." JBW (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As ISO is the owner of the copyright cetic.be can not claim any infringement, the copyright is related to ISO publications those can not be copied or scanned and so on. The ISO Technical Committees are used to publish articles on Wikipedia to inform and to promote their standards in many languages,this is a very welcome marketing practice by ISO, please have a look, for instance, at ISO 9000 or ISO 27000 pages, or at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_standards . The same has been done to inform about ISO 29110. Therefore, either Wikipedia removes all the references to ISO and then what is the purpose of Wikipedia? or Wikipedia restore ISO 29110 article. SWSYeng (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Facts cannot be copyrighted, so the use of ISO Technical Committees as sources is perfectly fine. However, you must present the facts in your own words. Copying text directly from a source is copyright infringement and against Wikipedia policy. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SWSYeng:

1. You seem to be saying that the copyright of the text in question belongs to ISO. Let us assume that you are right. As I have pointed out, ISO clearly and unambiguously states that its material may not be copied for use elsewhere. That means that we cannot publish a copy of the material. It's as simple as that.
2. Whether anyone else other than ISO can "claim" copyright or not is irrelevant. An editor reported that content of the article had been copied from elsewhere, and provided a URL to a website where it had been published. I checked, and confirmed that was so, indicating that it infringed copyright. It absolutely doesn't matter whether the copyright belongs to that website or to another source which had been copied to that website: it clearly infringes somebody's copyright.
3. You say that the ISO Technical Committees publish articles on Wikipedia "to promote their standards", and that doing so is "a very welcome marketing practice". It may be very welcome to you, but not to Wikipedia, because editing to promote or market anything is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. However, that is irrelevant in this case, as the copyright issue prevents any consideration of restoring the deleted text, no matter who posted it, and no matter what their purpose in doing so was. JBW (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   For the sake of clarity, I repeat: ISO has the copyright on the standards and related documents, whether they are paid for or free of charge. Everyone is free to describe and inform about these standards, in particular the members of the TCs that create them. Again for the sake of precision, those people have no economic advantage since only ISO can sell the standards.

   But you raise a different issue. "An editor reported that content of the article had been copied from elsewhere, and provided a URL to a website where it had been published. "

   I am not able to give a sure answer because I am not the editor of the text but I am a user and was using it to inform digital companies within our associations of the existence and usefulness of these ISO standards. I will point out your indication to the original editor and to ISO JTC1/SC7/WG24 convenor. Personally, I think it is the other way around, since many web sites of companies and associations use to refer to the Wikipedia pages on standards precisely because they are published by the same people who write them and are therefore a valid source. SWSYeng (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SWSYeng: I get the impression that there may be some confusion here as to exactly what the issues are, so I will try to clarify them. I hope these comments may be helpful to you.

1. All that you say there may be true, but it is not relevant to the issue in hand. Certainly "Everyone is free to describe and inform about these standards", but that is not the issue: the issue is describing and informing about the standards in words copied from someone else rather than in one's own words, and in this case in words copied from someone else who has explicitly stated that they do not allow such copying.
2. For what it is worth I have now confirmed that much, if not all, of the copied text originated at https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:29110:-2:ed-1:v1:en so the sources cited by the editor who reported the copyright infringement were themselves copyright-infringing copies from the original. However, that makes no difference at all, because, as I have explained above, the issue is that it is an infringement of somebody's copyright, no matter whose. JBW (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Hope tou would be fine. I recently made new account and need your help. Previously, I edited on the Wikipedia by the accounts like User:Qwef1234, User:What about him?, User: Stereotypical Name, User:RoyalCharm, User:15Shelby and User:BNK2345. I admit that I did extremely wrong on violating the policies by using multiple accounts. I made many accounts but Qwef1234 was the main one, others were used rarely, and were more often after the blocking of the Qwef1234. I also want to clear that I am not related to User:Nauman335 by any means, just major areas of interest are same which led to labeling my account as the sockpuppet of Nauman335. I apologise for my deeds and now want to start from a new end. I have mentioned all the accounts that I owned, and now want to contribute to the Wikipedia by fair means. Hoep you will not disappoint me. Stay good. Wonderland92 (talk) Wonderland92 (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, reply me. I need your help. Wonderland92 (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked due to admitted block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBW -- I see you've recently been involved with block evasion by Extrapolaris. I'd appreciate any input you can offer here please! --Rlandmann (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, I returned back to wikipedia after a few years willing to write an article. However, I notice I have been blocked after being caught by an open proxy block. I don't even know what that means and can't remember what might have happened long ago. Can you please help me get back to editing? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpaudel969 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpaudel969: I don't understand this. If you were blocked, you wouldn't be able to edit this page, unless it were a partial block not applying to user talk pages, but I cannot imagine any situation in which it would make sense for a proxy block to be applied as a partial block, rather than a total block. Can you check whether you can edit other pages? If you really can't then tell me exactly what the notice says which tells you that you can't edit, and I will see if I can help. If that would involve revealing information which you don't wish to make public (such as your IP address, if you prefer to keep it confidential) then you can send it to me by email. JBW (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see I can still edit. However, here's the exact notice (now wondering what it means):

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy.

Decline reason:

There is nothing we can do about an IP block unless you tell us what IP address is blocked. If you still can't edit, post another unblock request, stating what IP address it is, or, if for some reason you don't want to make the IP address public, request an unblock at Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. (The message telling you that you can't edit will say what IP address it is.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My IP address is 27.34.68.27 if that helps. Thanks. Kpaudel969 (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpaudel969: That relates to an old block which you experienced on 26 August 2015, as you will see if you look back at the unblock request on your talk page. That block has long since ceased to affect you, as you were editing from November 2015 to October 2017. When you posted that unblock request there was no block on the IP address you have given now, so it must have been on another IP address, very likely one that you moved on from years ago. An open proxy is an arrangement whereby anyone can connect to the internet indirectly, through a server somewhere else, rather than directly from their own computer. They are usually blocked from editing Wikipedia because they can be used to evade blocks.

Although your current IP address is not blocked now, it was blocked several times between September 2021 and May 2023 as a P2P VPN, so it is possible that may happen again. A P2P VPN is a type of proxy where connections are made via the computers of other users, rather than from a central server. Sometimes people use a P2P VPN without knowing it by that name, but knowing that they are connecting via a network of users. In some countries people don't even know that they are on such a network, because their ISP has put them on one without telling them (which is generally considered to be unethical, and in many countries is illegal). The article Anonymous P2P gives some information about how P2P networking works, which may or may not be of interest to you. The fact that the last block on the IP address was over a year ago encourages me to think that the IP address is no longer on a P2P VPN, so that it is unlikely to be blocked again. It may have been a use made by a previous user of that IP address, and won't affect you. JBW (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JB. Looks like I found another block evader with the help of DNSlytics: 38.20.133.160 & 216.73.64.155 are both from The Pas, Manitoba, and have a history virtually identical edits. The latter is on a ten-year block and the former just resumed the same behavior which prompted a two-week block last month.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 38.20 can be partially blocked from pages related to Pirates of the Caribbean?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a partial block is that it isn't possible to block more than 10 pages, and there are more than that involved. In any case, the very few non-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-related edits aren't particularly constructive, so there doesn't seem any reason not to give a full block, which I have done. I also discovered that 216.73.64.155 is one of a range of school IP addresses, with an extensive history of vandalism and blocks on particular IP addresses or subranges, so I have consolidated that into one long and wide range block. As always, thanks for letting me know. 😉 JBW (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same block evader, I'm guessing: 2605:B100:1140:EAC:95E:B59F:8E40:D800.

Similar edits came from 2605:B100:1118:1F2D:4DB5:22BA:C110:F0FD, 2605:B100:1113:DDE1:1902:802C:EE84:1519, and 2605:B100:1113:DDE1:9C75:B8E9:B40A:E613.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: I've blocked the IP range 2605:b100:1140:eac::/64, but history suggests they will just come back on another range. There's no question of blocking a range big enough to cover all of the IP addresses you have listed. I suppose it just might be possible to put a fairly large number of partial blocks each covering up to 10 articles on subranges of all the IP ranges used, but it would be a very time-consuming task, and even then it would remain to be seen how effective it would be. If you feel like putting in the work of compiling a list of the articles involved, and as many as possible of the IP addresses involved, I will look at it and see whether it seems feasible. Other than that, it's just a question of blocking each new IP address or range when it comes up. JBW (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that putting pending changes protection on the pages for character-related articles, as it already is at Jack Sparrow, would be more beneficial if the IP-hopper keeps returning.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Do you know, I hadn't thought of pending changes protection, but it may well be the best option, under the circumstances. JBW (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for handling those jeikus. Let me know if I need to file a pro forma SPI (I just realised I never did file one). Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: I think this is such a blindingly obvious case that an SPI isn't necessary. JBW (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBW. I created the article on the Chinese in America book at the title The Chinese in America. I thought the book was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because

1. a Google search for "The Chinese in America" returns results largely about the book and
2. the redirect received only 19 views between 1 January 2024 and 29 June 2024.

If there is no primary topic, a disambiguation page is the right approach per WP:NOPRIMARY. If the book is the primary topic, the book should be at the title. If History of Chinese Americans is the primary topic, the title should redirect to there. As you restored the disambiguation page at the title, do you think there is no primary topic for the title "The Chinese in America"? I am inexperienced in the area of article titles and WP:COMMONNAME so could be mistaken and would appreciate your guidance here.

Separately, when I created the book article, I also created Talk:The Chinese in America with WikiProject banners. The talk page was deleted. Would you restore the talk page to the correct location? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: You are absolutely right. I saw the creation of an article over an existing disambiguation page, which is usually an unhelpful thing to do, and acted hastily, without thinking it through. I have returned the article you created to its original title, and I apologise for putting you to the trouble. Thank you for pointing this out, so that I could correct my mistake. JBW (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thank you so much for reviewing this and moving the article back! Cunard (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

There's a troll[1] who in the past (going back to 2019 or 2020) keeps stating that the 5th Virtua Fighter game is the final installment, but that's not up to that person to state that. That's up to the Developer and the Publisher and there's been no statement of any kind made by them.[2]-108.208.136.243 (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 5th Virtua Fighter game has not had a sequel in 18 years. There's isn't even anything in the media regarding a new installment. How is it not the final? 2603:8000:E800:5F4E:45C6:8B0B:E52E:7D01 (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be true, but Wikipedia policy is that we don't accept statements because someone who has chosen to edit Wikipedia thinks it must be true: we accept statements because reliable published sources say so. If you edit Wikipedia then you have to accept Wikipedia policies, whether you agree with them or not. (There are aspects of Wikipedia policy that I don't agree with, but I still abide by them.) You have been edit-warring over this for several years; it is time for you to stop. I hope that, now that the policy concerned has been made clear to you, you won't continue. I really hope it won't be necessary to take measures such as protecting the article to stop you, as doing that would cause inconvenience for other editors who wish to make constructive edits. JBW (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, the poor guy must be terribly confused and I just wanted to make things easier on him. The pages have already been deleted so the notifications are no longer needed.

Here is a summary of this whole mess:

1. He wants to change his username to the name of another existing account, which is not his. He tried to do this by moving his userpage. It seems you've already undone this bit.
2. He wants to create a userpage for himself but the ones he's created have been speedied as promotional. He also made a mainspace page for himself, which I think you've already speedied.
3. He's trying to get an article through AfC (separate from his autobiography) for which he has an improperly disclosed COI.
4. He's made a few good faith but terrible edits to random mainspace articles. I was going to talk to him about this but I didn't want to introduce yet another subject when we're already dealing with all of the above.

I would suggest blocking him and solving one thing at a time. Too many things to keep up with at the same time. Un assiolo (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Un assiolo: OK, I think you are right about most things, and I have undone my reverting of your removal, thanks for explaining your reason. Unfortunately I don't have any more time for this now, but maybe I'll come back to it when I have. JBW (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-admitted TROLL wants to know what they did wrong.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, trolling about their trolling. JBW (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just saw the deletion of the list of boomer slang. I never saw that page (and don't keep up with the dozens or hundreds of Wikipedia's daily deletion noms), can I have a copy in my user space? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After you topic-banned this user yesterday, that's how they retaliated. Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: On the user talk page you will see my response. It is a toned-down version of my first draft message to post there. JBW (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]