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, 85

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

FredSmith56789 and The McCallie School

Hi, JB. I started a COIN discussion about this but nothing much is happening and that account is still editing the article without any responses on their User Talk. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked now, along with one sock. Maybe protect the page to discourage more socks? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: I saw your message above, and read the COIN noticeboard discussion, but I didn't have much time, so I left it to deal with later. By the time I came back, the account had been blocked for a week; I would have made it indef. Now, as you no doubt know, following the sockpuppetry, the block's been upped to a month; agsin, I would have made it indef. I'm in two minds about protecting the article. At first I thought yes, but I'm wondering about leaving it, to see what they do. Whether they try to evade the block again or not would be a good indicator of whether to indef the account or not, and whether to be sympathetic to any unblock request or not. On the whole I'm inclined to leave it, at least for a day or so, and watch it. JBW (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sock's username, and lack of communication, I can't help but wonder if we're dealing with a troll. Another sock would show how determined they are. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: As you may have noticed, they did indeed come back with another sockpuppet, so I have indeffed the original account and semi-protected the article. I preferred to do it that way because it makes it much more unambiguous that those two steps are justified. JBW (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did and your handling of the situation makes sense. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User: Awesomeelephant

User:PAustin4thApril1980 is back. Awesomeelephant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing Mary McElroy (kidnapping victim), Lucy Van Pelt, and Nikolas Cruz, all of which were edited by Paul. Loveroftruth1701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only edited the Cruz article and may also be Paul. AldezD (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AldezD: The Awesomeelephant account is as blatant a sock as they come, and I've blocked it. Loveroftruth1701 could be, but in the tiny amount of editing so far I don't see any reason to. JBW (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns regarding Patu Keswani and Lemon Tree Hotels articles, promotional tone, poor sourcing, and sockpuppetry

Hi,I’d like to raise some concerns regarding the articles Patu Keswani and Lemon Tree Hotels. The Patu Keswani article appears promotional in tone, lacks strong independent reliable sources, and fails to establish clear notability per Wikipedia guidelines. The page was originally created by User:Vivekkhanna123456, who appears to be a likely sockpuppet, raising red flags about possible conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. The associated article Lemon Tree Hotels, a company owned by Patu Keswani, also reads like a paid piece, with similar promotional language and sparse independent sourcing. I recommend a review for both articles regarding neutrality, notability, and sourcing, and to investigate the editing history for potential sockpuppetry or undisclosed affiliations. These may be suitable for tagging, cleanup, or even AfD (Articles for Deletion), depending on further review. Thanks for your time! AliveNull (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AliveNull: Both articles as originally created were grossly promotional, more than enough so, in my opinion, to have justified speedy deletion. In fact the first creation of Lemon tree hotels was speedily deleted as promotional, but the person who had created it just created it again under the slightly different title Lemon Tree Hotels, and it escaped being deleted again.

The article Patu Keswani is nowhere near as promotional in its present as it was at first, but it still has far too much of a promotional tone, in my opinion. It could be cleaned up in that respect, but I have no intention of putting work into doing so, because I don't think Patu Keswani is notable enough in Wikipedia's terms to justify the existence of the article, no matter how much cleaning up might be done. None of the cited references comes anywhere near to showing notability, and my searches turned up nothing better. I have therefore put a PROD (proposed deletion) on it. I now see that since I did that an editor has turned the article into a redirect to Lemon Tree Hotels.

The article Lemon Tree Hotels is not so straightforward. It has benefited considerably from clean up since it was created, and although it could be made better still, it is no longer strikingly promotional, and I don't see it as screaming out for something to be done, as I do with Patu Keswani. The article was taken to AfD 10 years ago, by an editor who thought the subject did not satisfy the notability guidelines. Two other people said that it did, and the article was kept, as you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemon Tree Hotels. I have checked the references, and I think those two editors were wrong; neither the article as it was then nor as it is now is supported by sources which satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't at present plan to take it to a second AfD, but there's nothing to stop you from taking it back to AfD if you wish to. However, my advice is that if you do decide to do that then you should wait until you have more experience of editing Wikipedia, and in particular more experience of AfDs, because new editors taking articles to AfD very often don't get anywhere because they don't know what kind of thing is likely to work. JBW (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed response and background on both articles. I completely understand your reasoning and appreciate you taking the time to review and PROD the Patu Keswani article — the redirect seems like a reasonable outcome given the notability concerns.

As for Lemon Tree Hotels, I agree that the current sourcing still seems weak, especially for establishing significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as required by WP:GNG. I’ll take your advice seriously and won’t rush into AfD, but I may consider a neutral cleanup tag or sourcing tag in the meantime to highlight the issue for other experienced editors. Thanks again for your guidance much appreciated. AliveNull (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/पटू_केसवानी I found this AliveNull (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf

Hi dear,
I have searched a lot to find a valid content which proves the Persian Gulf has another name, but I was unsuccessful!
I need help. How can we correct the Page of Persian Gulf? Because there is no valid resource which proves this sentence:

The Persian Gulf,[a] sometimes called the Arabian Gulf,[b]...

I have talked with the user @Skitash, who persist on the name arabian gulf with no any resource!
This is an official historical theme, if you confirm, I kindly ask you to change it back to what it since 1000 years (at least) has been.

With warm regards
Payam A. PayamAvarwand (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) PayamAvarwand, perhaps I can help: please see this, the 100th page of 10 search results for "Arabian Gulf" on Google Scholar, i.e., numbers 991–1000 of an estimated 172000 results in all. HTH, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I have seen these before, but it's not acceptable that a person write a book about the topic "X", but he calls the topic "Y" in his texts! Because he is trying to get the attention of Y-People in order to profit from them in any possible way (as if we don't know, Oil)!

And all this resources which used the A------- Gulf are really new contents, (the oldest one is after WW2), there were news papers, TV, Radio and everything already!

The oldest known reference to the body of water south of Iran as the "Persian Gulf" appears in ancient Greek texts, dating back to at least the 5th century BCE.

Herodotus (c. 484–425 BCE) called it "Persian Sea" or "Persian Gulf". PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortidia Page

Hello, i've answered to your message on my talk page but you never replied. Please i need an answer about the deletion of the Fortidia page.

Thanks, Alessia Acasola (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New user talk page message

I for one appreciate you sticking to WP:AGF in this message, but this is just another sock of a banned user engaging in long-term harassment of me. oknazevad (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknazevad: Thanks for telling me. I've blocked the account, though unfortunately from looking at the history it seems doubtful how much good that will do. 😕 JBW (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's annoyingly persistent. oknazevad (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still continuing :(

Now from Special:Contributions/5.138.233.48. (My unsolicited 2c: you've done page protections before in addition to blocks, but since they seem to dump similar garbage in new places, maybe it would be helpful for spotting them to not protect.) Thanks again for your help. --JBL (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBL: You're probably right. I've put a range block covering the one you've mentioned, but without any faith that it will achieve much. 😕 JBW (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To JBW3

Thanks for emptying out all of those sock-created categories. It really helps the speedy deletion process to have them emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: You must mean the JBW3 reverts of WilliamJE. What I did covered only a minority of them, but I reached the limit of how much time I could spend on it. Possibly I may go back to it. JBW (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Private Messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump"

Hi, I saw in my watchlist you deleted the page "Private Messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump". I moved the page to Private messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump a few hours before per MOS:AT, but even though the previous title was a redirect to the new title, it didn't get deleted. So you should probably delete that page as well. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Not-cheesewhisk3rs: Thanks for letting me know. I've now deleted it. However, moving pages while they are subject to deletion discussion is almost always a bad idea, because it can cause confusion. Even if there's a good reason for the move, it's usually better to wait until the discussion is over. JBW (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realised this after I noticed the page wasn't deleted correctly. Although I didn't really notice there was a discussion, I saw it after it was deleted. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI re ANI

FYI, I started an AN/I thread about a user you previously gave a detailed warning to, as the issues have continued. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]