User talk:JodyB

user page // talk page

projects • policies • interests • templates • external

awards • personal

Daphne, Alabama • Spanish Fort High School

admin

Hello and welcome!
If you post to my talk page, I will reply exclusively here. If I posted recently to your talk page, I will read responses exclusively there.
Please make sure and sign your message with ~~~~

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Use JodyB's public key for PGP or GPG encrypted communication.

Tvx11

Hi JodyB,

I have been directed to you as the admin who took care of an account called "Tvx11" the other day, as I have found another account that fits the same style of posting. Before they blanked the page, this user stated that their account was created "for fun", just as the Tvx11 account was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADarrandarra&diff=650895838&oldid=650895532

I am keeping an eye out for others like it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll watch them closely. I susect you are correct. Let's see what they do. JodyB _talk 20:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

He so far seems to be trying to stir up trouble at Talk:2015 Formula One season. I am going to avoid contributing to that discussion because he clearly wants a reaction, and I am willing to bet that he will use anything I say to fuel tensions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a wise decision. It's usually best not to feed the trolls. He hasn't posted for about 6 hours so maybe he will remain quiet. I've watchlisted his talk page and I check his contributions from time to time. I imagine he will fade away. If not we will deal with him as we have to. JodyB _talk 02:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Fred Bendheim

Hi JodyB, You deleted my article on Fred Bendheim. Please let me know why. The article is in progress and there are more references that have not been added. Please let me know specifically what you or Wikipedia need to allow the article. Thank you.Staffer55 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Staffer55

Thank you for your question. I see that the article has been moved into draft space which is a good place to work on it. The original article was tagged for speedy deletion because it did not assert the significance of the subject. There are many artists but not all deserve a page. You need to show that he is notable. read the notability article for help. You must back up your claim of notability through the use of reliable sources. If you wish, I will be glad to take a look at it once you are done and offer suggestions. Regards! JodyB _talk 02:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Ikonomidis

I cannot see how you can say that there is a consensus to keep here. Even if you exclude arguments not based on general notability, there is still a greater number of editors (if you include me) saying the article should be deleted. If you feel more discussion is necessary, please relist the debate. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I thought long about the closure and, as I noted, it was saved, because in my judgement, it met the general notability guidelines. AFD is not simply about votes. Administrators evaluate the discussion and act accordingly. I'm afraid I must decline your request to relist. You may take the close to deletion review if you feel so compelled. Thanks! JodyB _talk 18:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

AFD closes

I'm sorry to have to raise this with you, but I thought it better to do so here than in some other forum. I, like others who have expressed the same sentiment, are glad you have returned after your hiatus. I am concerned, though, that jumping right back into AFD closes upon your return has yielded some questionable results. Beyond that which I have commented on at DRV, there are the two closes mentioned in your most recent archive as well as this one and this one. I should point out that I participated in both, so it might just be that I am in the unique position of having had a stake in three of your closes in the last few days. The former of those was closed as delete when the agree-upon consensus (which you made a point of praising) was clearly userfy (a perfectly valid close option). Instead you deleted it (rather than moving it without a redirect) meaning an inexperienced editor needs to approach you to undelete it to maintain attribution - they are far more likely to simply create a draft which will later need to be history-merged with the deleted version (if anyone notices). The latter of those is problematic too, and that's from someone who "got their way". One of the keep votes was simply an attack on the nominator and my work/opinion acknowledged there might not be enough coverage there. Two people argued there wasn't and one argued that there was. None of that makes for a particularly strong consensus. I'm not going to go as far as to suggest you not close AFDs but could you please give some of these more thought, particularly with regard to alternatives to keeping and deleting? Arguably, all of those could be reviewed at DRV. 5 questionable closes in a week, sorry a month, isn't great. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stalwart111, thank you for your thoughts and for the manner in which you've chosen to address your concerns. I appreciate any criticism which is constructive in nature. Let me say that I intended to convey a willingness to userfy the article you mentioned. I will immediately move it to the author's sandbox rather than waiting to hear from him. Not a problem at all. I will look closer in the future although I cannot promise we will always agree. Please know that I am open to your thoughts always. JodyB _talk 02:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, I certainly don't expect blind agreement and as I pointed out, several of your closes actually went "my way". Your willingness to look closer is reassuring, as is your willingness to fine-tune that particular close. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you also correct the close to reflect that the consensus was actually userfy? Is that possible? It may not actually matter, but it might. I don't want the article to be speedily deleted for not being different enough when other editors expressed the idea that it was "almost there." Lizardbones (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is presently at deletion review and the closure is being discussed there. I don't think it would be wise to make any change to the close during the discussion. But my close did mention that I was willing to userfy the article. Once the discussion is done I will make an "after-the-fact" notation. I honestly thought I was helping but it looks like I muddied the waters instead. My apologies. JodyB _talk 11:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Lizardbones I was confused. Please disregard the above. I confused your article with one at DRV. I have made the notation you requested. JodyB _talk 16:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

NEXX

Hi. Can you restore recently deleted article NEXX? Me and user werldwayd, consider this band notable (see this), and I would be willing to work on it. XXN, 15:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the article and moved it into your userspace. You can find it at User:XXN/sandbox/NEXX. If you have any questions or need any help just let me know. Thanks! JodyB _talk 20:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! XXN, 23:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

deleted page Endpoint_Mixing

Dear JodyB, regarding a recent deletion of page Endpoing_Mixing, I had responsed by pressing the button "Delete Contest" and query about which part of the content I should have changed, but there is no answer and it was being deleted very soon. May I know what is the reason why it is deleted and how should I change the content in order to put it back on wiki? Thanks!

Digorious (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. First, I will be happy to restore the article and move it to your user sandbox so that you can work on it and bring it into compliance with our policies. Just let me know if you wish to do that. The problems with the article seem to revolve around two things. One, it is written like an advertisement or brochure. You use words and phrases like "new and ground breaking" which smack of promotion. Articles must be written like an encyclopedic article. Second, all articles must be properly sourced in order to verify their notability. Before doing anything else I would read the following pages, Notability, Reliable Sources and Verifiability. There are no exceptions to these "rules." Some outside, independent and significant source must have already written about Endpoint. If you have more questions, please let me know. I'll be happy to help. Also, if you want the article moved to your sandbox, let me know that too. I'm happy to help. JodyB _talk 11:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear JodyB, thank you for your detail and prompt response. I understand and fully agree with what you said. I am happy and wanted my article moves to sandbox, please do so for me. And I will revise according to your instructions and resubmit. By the way, please note that I am new with Wikipedia writing so if I have question and asked your advise, please give me some help, and thank you so much and God bless! Digorious (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Welcome! I am happy to help with any question, just post here and I will get back to you as soon as possible. I'm sure you will do a fine job. Give me a few minutes and I will get the article moved. JodyB _talk 13:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done The article is at User:User:Digorious/sandbox/Endpoint Mixing. JodyB _talk 13:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of my article

You did it so quickly that I could not even challenge it. Within minutes. I consider this discourteous. deisenbe (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What article? JodyB _talk 14:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

How to learn a foreign language.deisenbe (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is at AFD so I will restore and allow it to run. JodyB _talk 15:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on Tito

I am trying to discuss with user Tuxiver about a more compromised formulation for the lead of Josep Broz Tito's article but fail to discuss with the aforementioned user. Any suggestion? Silvio1973 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can seek help from the reliable sources noticeboard if you wish. It seems the discussion there centers on what source should be used. There has been a discussion at the article talk page with little progress. However editors are communicating. Use caution with reverts and stay calm. JodyB _talk 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Silvio1973 Let me be a little stronger. After looking closer at the history, you are dangerously close to a 3RR block. Do not revert again today. JodyB _talk 20:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I did not revert, but modified another section of the lead. I hope this is OK. Please tell me. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Silvio1973, Revert does not mean pressing the revert button. It means changing what another has added. For example, "Tito is seen by most" to "Tito is seen by some" is a revert. You should stop now and leave it alone. Read 3RR and EW. before making anymore edits. JodyB _talk 21:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@JodyB OK, clear enough. Please mind well I do not contest the source, which is fine. It's the use of the source itself. The entire lead is built with selective choice of sources. However, your message is clear. I won't revert and hope discussion will follow, although I am pretty sure it won't. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@JodyB The point is that I posted sourced edits but they are removed without any explanation. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand Silvio1973 but this is a content dispute. Administrators typically avoid content disputes. You have to work it out on the talk page. From what I see, you do not yet have consensus to make your desired change. Just be careful and do not edit war or get into a 3RR situation. Either will get you blocked. JodyB _talk 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk Arnis

There is a problem with your last deletion - brought about by a series of page moves. I think Talk:Arnis used to be Talk:Eskrima which had content including archives. Talk:Arnis seemed to be ok when I checked earlier and of course there is an Arnis page.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) : Done. I deleted a redirect and this page showed as its talk page. Not sure what happened there but in any case the talk page is restored. If that is not what you want let me know. JodyB _talk 10:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

Hello JodyB. In this edit you seem to be declining the appeal of the block you imposed yourself. This would be unorthodox. If you wish, you could add the same comment, just not using the decline template. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Re the JTB article

I feel I have to say this: it isn't justified to treat Silvio1973's actions equally with those of Tuvixer. Silvio has tagged and edited sourced segments of the lead (very well sourced segments of the lead) based on nothing but his own "appraisal" of the sources' accuracy and reliability. If you read his comments in the discussion thread, you can see that he expects opposing users to now "compromise" with nothing but his own views. You can also see he has not even inspected the listed references to the point of clicking on them, that he might discover what they are and what they say (he questions whether a source is cited correctly - while there's a direct quote in the ref), etc..

I've been around for years and I can't answer Tuvixer's question: what was he to do? Imo, had he gone to a noticeboard he would either get ignored or blocked alongside Silvio1973. -- Director (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is he knew better but still violated 3RR and/or edit warring. Plus, he was specifically warned. Maybe a brief break will be useful. Thanks for you thoughts. JodyB _talk

Followup: just a few days after his latest block, Silvio1973 is again edit-warring to push another non-consensus, opposed edit, in exactly the same manner, this time on the Istrian exodus article, with exactly the same rhetoric. I won't edit-war with him, but, like Tuvixer, I'd like to request assistance.

In my opinion, this is a very disruptive user, and the need to follow the most basic policies and behavioral guidelines should be impressed upon him. He doesn't seem to give a damn whether or not anyone objects to his edits. -- Director (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look. JodyB _talk 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

deleted my page Pierra Akwero

Hey JodyB, i created a page for a former model cum musician called PIerra Akwero. Recently i discovered the page doesnt exit, and so when i logged into wikipedia, i found out that it had been deleted by you. Reasons, that the person doesn't exit. The person does exist and i thought wikipedia was an open platform with no limitations, as long as what is posted makes sense. Besides, i have seen alot of blank, useless wikipedia pages that are never deleted. Please help me.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danogwok (talk • contribs) 07:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The page was tagged and sent for a discussion at Articles for Deletion. The consensus was not that she does not exist but that there is no evidence of notability. You will need to read the page on notability. Thanks! JodyB _talk 09:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Pierra Akwero

Hey JodyB, does that mean i can't create a page for Pierra Akwero? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danogwok (talk • contribs) 11:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But what must be done is that when you create it you must include proper sourcing. The sourcing verifies that what you say about Akwero is true and that they are notable by the standards of Wikipedia. That sourcing must come from reliable sources. My suggestion is that you read each of the policies I just linked to, ask any questions and then create the article. Be be prepared to do it fast because it will likely be tagged for deletion very quickly. Let me know and I will be happy to take a look at the article and offer suggestions. The sourcing is critical. JodyB _talk 11:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Elberta, Alabama page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of my article Thank You

Hi I don't know how / where to post this, so I am just adding here so you can delete / move this if necessary afterwards. First, Thank you for deleting my last article, it was not ideal having it sit there in limbo with warnings.

Second, on the deletion discussion page for my 3rd article there are 2 erroneous comments I'd like corrected for the record, if at all possible. My first article was about John Wick, whose carbon protocol has now been accepted for CA climate change impacts. This was also deleted as, and I understand the regulations better now, it was an article albeit citing 7 years of research that still focused on future notability. I had 3 articles deleted, (2 environmentalists, 1 engineer) and had prepared 3 more environmentalists' articles, when suddenly the deletions began and I realized I was not a good wiki writer. The deletion remarks, however, incorrectly ignore John Wick and imply propaganda of the other two because they are married. Could that "sole contributions" comment be corrected?

The other correction I'd like to request, is regarding the intention. I was using the same humanizing format for these impactful sectors that wikipedia uses to celebrate entertainers. Articles on entertainers describe inspirational people and all 6 of my articles were on non-political philanthropists donating money and time to working on climate change. Clearly, using that inspirational format was not a good strategy. And it was badly executed, as you see from Bbb23's comments like "dreadful" and "messy" and life is better now that all is deleted as if it never happened. The definition of the word Propaganda is "biased, misleading, promoting political cause or point of view." Is this referring to being pro-environment? No politics is mentioned and all of the body of work information is correct, verified and reinforced by news articles. I did mention a connection to the BP oil spill, a clean up program in the 3rd article, neutrally I thought compared to other Wiki BP articles. That was removed first, I noticed. The negative implication that the article was propaganda is unfounded. Can the "propaganda" comment be corrected?

In answer to the question by MelanieN Why wasn't there an article about the charity, that was because any information on charities that isn't immediately available on google, the website or in the news would be extraneous and quickly out of date. And I thought that the regulations on promotion and advertising would be more relevant to articles on organizations which would benefit from the publicity than of the specific, replicable work of their (in these 6 cases) uncompensated founders. I'm still confused about the wikipedia warnings and if I'm not alone, that's a possible sign of a definition that could be clearer.

Finally, as obviously I won't be involved in wikipedia in the future, could I leave a couple of suggestions with you? A) I couldn't find a quantifiable definition of notable. I picked for my 6 article subjects, having multiple, national media source documents and a body of work including at least 2 separate public outcomes that impacted a minimum of 1 million people. And that was insufficient. Reading your other comments below, I'm not alone in my confusion on this definition either. The subjective nature of the review process notwithstanding, better definitions could save a lot of time and effort. Could Wikipedia quantify notability in its definition?

B) Wikipedia's list of policies has a section on conduct and mentions rudeness, insensitivity, personal attacks and I think it would be useful for that to apply to the admins as well because I find terms like "dreadful" (and there were many other such words in my "messy" 3rd article's delete comments) unnecessary, unprofessional and over-emotionally charged for the situation. I did wrongly think I had done something mechanically incorrect or possibly it was a robot glitch the first time I saw so much of the content removed on the third article and as I was able with one click I just foolishly put it all back. This greatly upset the deleter more, which was my fault, and the clearly sentiment lingered. The other articles had just been removed entirely (too short, too new). A simple, polite, instructive exchange would have made the third experience less traumatic.

If the purpose of the wikipedia website is to provoke then the emotional comments and publicly visible, condescending, yellow warnings are accomplishing this. If the goal is to inform then perhaps simply moving articles in question to a Wiki Under Review section so that the public isn't witness to the sausage being made, might benefit everyone from visitors, to editors to admins to your fundraisers.

At least you now have this truth on record in case corrections can be made. Again, I am so grateful for the rapid article deletion. And no worries. Never again.

Energizerbetty (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Energizerbetty (talk • contribs)

Your article that I deleted was removed as the result of a deletion discussion. I was the closing administrator and deleted after other editors reviewed and commented. There is a clearly delineted policy of notability which you should consider. If you find reliable sources to verify notability you may consider recreating the page. Please ask for help first so that it isn't immediately deleted. As for correcting the record I cannot edit others comments. JodyB _talk 01:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)