User talk:JodyB/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JodyB. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bennett Lebow

Sir,

How can the recent removal of my information to the Bennett Lebow page have been made without leaving the editors name in the history section? Also, if someone wanted to remove the information, they should have at least given a reason why. Thank you.

Alygx026 (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? There have been two edits since I removed page protection. Yours and mine where I removed a POV word. That's all. JodyB_talk 23:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If I enter the article page for "bennett lebow" from a search engine, my additions do not show up at all, even though they show on the edit page. Frankly, it is baffling to me, and I am wondering if I am doing something wrong? If I search "bennett lebow" using a search engine, the third choice is "bennett S Lebow" - Wikipedia, the free encyclopeida. When I click on the that entry, I am brought to the Bennett Lebow article page, and none of the many changes I made show up; however, if you press "edit" they all show up on the edit page. Since all the changes I made were showing up yesterday, and I did not do anything after you removed a supposed POV word (actually, I am simply quoting what they said, but I do not mind if you remove it) it appears to me someone has done something with the system/page, unless I am drastically wrong.

Alygx026 (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I now see my changes. Strange. Alygx026 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Your comment is interesting, but this isn't a dispute between one or two individuals. It's community-wide. I don't see how the other dispute methods could achieve. When negotiation fails, arbitration is the only recourse. Thanks for your participation in any case. -- Evertype·✆ 12:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is not community wide but limited to those who desire to edit the article Ireland. Disinterested parties could have an impact on the process there without taking it to ArbCom. Whether they take the case or not I cannot say but you will likely not be very pleased with the outcome. JodyB_talk 14:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

By community-wide I meant the community of users interested in editing what is currently Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Neither of those articles is really peripheral, yet this mess has persisted for years! Disinterested parties have tried to have an impact on the process. That has failed again and again. Whether they take the case or not I also cannot say, but if both "sides" get to make a case and an arbitration is made, that could put an end to the dispute. If not, nothing will, I fear. -- Evertype·✆ 16:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not doubt there are problems. But there is no evidence that anyone ever sought a third opinion, asked for informal mediation, formal mediation or made a request for wide community comment. I think you will find that ArbCom will become a diversion to the work you have to do. Their decisions are fraught with politics and often muddy the water as much as clear it. I do wish you all the best however. JodyB_talk 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Negative facts only

JodyB, you recently blocked my usernames from editing on Wikipedia. Since then Alygx026 has been infesting the Bennett S. LeBow article with purely negative facts (some which are seriously not relevant). alygx's stated goal was to present this article with a balanced point of view. Since I am not able to edit, I am asking that you read the article and see what changes Alygx has made.

Thanks

Kansas

So no one misunderstands, I carried out a block based on your proven abuse of multiple editing accounts. I am not a checkuser and it was not my call that you were a sock. I will look at the article. JodyB_talk 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of Clickwrestle links - Dec 2008

I was writing to you concerning the removal of the Clickwrestle links from multiple wrestler's wiki pages. Clickwrestle is a video on demand website dedicated to the growth of indy wrestling, and our company has a working relationship with many wrestlers and promotions. We are just trying to get out the footage of these wrestlers so that their careers can grow. There are other links found on the wrestler's wiki pages that lead to profiles from random promotions that also sell merchandise and dvds, and I'm really uncertain why ours was removed. I hope that this situation can be resolved. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.222.27 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that your videos were seemingly only available after subscribing (correct me if I am wrong). Other links (free ones) went to videos on You Tube which appear to violate the copyrights of the various production companies. Wikipedia is not here to drive sales to a site and the addition of eternal links to copyright violations is not allowed. Now, you are correct that others exist among other wrestlers and other topics too. However they have only not been removed because I haven't seen them. You and least two others were adding the links in quick order and were reverted by me and several others. Please feel free to explain that videos are free and free of copyright violations. JodyB_talk 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed explanation. We're going to update our pages to have Clickwrestle up to standards, so that you will allow us to have links on the site. We feel that our site is a reliable source for independent wrestling footage and information that should be a part of wikipedia. Have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.222.27 (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good. I am happy to assist in anyway. Please leave a note here and I will do what I can. JodyB_talk 02:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to JodyB regarding Lebow page

JodyB, I have placed a note on Urbanrenewal's website that you may be interested in reading.

Thank you Urban. I don't mind saying that I think you did a fine job of editing the article. I do disagree, however, that the portion regarding Mr. Lebow's quote regarding what he did to avoid bankruptcy should be left out. This is a direct quote, and it is factually based. Also, many people believe that it is particularly disturbing to have a man who sells a deadly and addictive product simultaneously act like some kind of a "public health advocate"; hence his resignation from the Dana Farber Institute. I believe the quote you want to eliminate is the linchpin of the arguments I have made, and while I do not need anyones permission to put it back, I am willing to leave it out at this point as this article has been through a lot (but will probably go through more changes), and the fact that you appear to be quite fair and a good editor. I will not, however, under any circumstances allow Kansas7474 (or whatever sockpuppet he/she wants to use) to violate the rules of Wikipedia again in such an extreme manner. I will also be watching this article for a long, long time.

Regards, ALY

Alygx026 (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for signing your post. I also appreciate your comments toward Urbanrenewal. That is the spirit of editing we are striving for. I would caution you about inflammatory comments directed at other users. Kansas7474 is not under any editing restrictions and may edit the article. No one will violate the rules here but we do not need you to go trolling for trouble.

I would suggest that all comments regarding Bennett LeBow be left only on the article talk page. That is a good central location and everyone can watchlist it. You are certainly welcomed to come here for assistance but I will be watching the page closely. JodyB_talk 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

banned user's request for checkuser

Hello, JodyB. Indef.blocked user Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) (=Show-me-the-evidence (talk · contribs)) currently requests for checkuser on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (2nd request) for a clarification on himself but the content is to blatantly harass me again. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was indef.blocked as a sock of Lucyintheskywithdada by Maxim, so the vandal should've asked the reason to Maxim, not me nor checkuser (I've not requested for checkuser on Mustafa). Besides, this request is filed by banned user, so this should be deleted as well. Regards.--Caspian blue 12:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am not a checkuser, just a clerk. The request you speak of will be accepted or declined by a checkuser as I only post it to the page. I will note however that the filing party is Show-me-the-evidence (talk · contribs) who is not banned. I do understand your assumption and concerns but officially, Show-me is not banned and maintains a clean block log. If you feel this is harrasement, please post your concerns to the RFCU case. JodyB_talk 15:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the complaint carefully, you can find that the filer Show-me-the-evidence confirmed himself as a sock of indef.blocked Documentingabuse (talk · contribs), one of socks used by Lucyintheskywithdada. You're a clerk for there, so I left this note. The only reason that the sock, how-me-the-evidence has no block record yet is I did believe that you would do quickly take care of it (I thought you were active).--Caspian blue 19:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have re-read the complaint and do not see the connection you are so adamant about. I am active as a clerk but I do defer to the checkusers to make their own decisions which is appropriate. I do not jump to the tune of someone who is so aggressive and condescending. As I suggested when you first posted here, add your complaints to the post. I will add a note there myself. JodyB_talk 19:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I added my note to the page. The RFCU page filed by the sockpuppeter is not to check on me, but on a newbie who had a dispute regarding a report/warning on his 3RR violation/original research a couple of days ago. The highly likely sockpuppeter of Lucyintheskywithdada falsely accuses that I filed a RFCU on Mustafa for my alleged agenda; that is a harassment. Anyway, thank you for the advice.--Caspian blue 19:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the note. If you are convinced he is a sock then please file a report on him. I knew it was a check not directly involving you but there is a lot of history here. It's best to let the CU's do their work without screening or filtering the complaint. Let me know if I can help. JodyB_talk 19:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This diff and this that include the sock's same agenda and animosity against me would be a hint for you. I assumed you may be aware of vandalism by the sockpuppter last Saturday.--Caspian blue 19:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(Addendum) Actually, there is no need for me to request for check on the filer, because the RFCU itself is to check him (including his socks) and Mustafa by the filer.--Caspian blue 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to bring this to an end, Checkuser was unable to link Show-me-the-evidence (talk · contribs) to any of the users. There is likely some anon linkage but not clear enough to satisfy the checkuser at this point. Had we pulled this filing many other socks would have gone un-washed. JodyB_talk 23:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not file a new request on Show-me-the-evidence, because the filer already listed his IP socks and accounts except the first two. The checkuser says some of IPs are used by Documentingabuse and likely Show-me-the-evidence.--Caspian blue 23:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David ^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David ^WS _(contribs) 19:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message!

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge Talk^Contribs, 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Food is Love

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Food is Love, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not for book reviews

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Y'Self

How DARE you do that to me! All because YOU have not heard of the band because you are AMERICAN doesn't mean it isn't significant! Put in Please Y'Self on Google and look what comes up! A website on the band run independently! I do not run this band and have no leads to them, but am a fan, so I am not trying to get glory. They were No.2 in the ILA'S over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koshoes (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Chill, chill, chill. First, please sign your talk page messages. Now, someone else put the article up to be immediately deleted which I prevented. Next, I checked google and found about 350 hits and out of the first few pages none were what we call reliable sources. I then put the article up for the community to decide. So go spout your venom somewhere else. If you can support the notability of the subject I suggest you do it now. JodyB_talk 16:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

FMI Corporation Page Deletion

Hello, we were trying to do a minor edit on our wiki-page when it was "speedily deleted". We were not logged in & were trying to add in another industry & couldn't get the coding right, and I think that tripped off the nonsense alarms & deleted our entire page.

What are the next steps in trying to get our page back?

Thanks, Vonnie

FMICorporation (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The page was tagged by an editor and I deleted it because it was little more than an advertisement for FMI. The policies and guidelines at Wikipedia demand that any subject be notable and that the notoriety be evidenced by verification in reliable third party sources. There is also a requirement that articles adhere to a neutral point of view. The fact that your user name is the same of the company suggest a significant conflict of interest.

In order to restore the page you must provide evidence, through reliable sources, that the company is truely notable enought to have its own article. The mere existance of the company is not enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising directory so all articles must be written with those standards in mind.

If you have further questions, please ask. JodyB_talk 17:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly...

When I created the FMI page and my user name for the site, I didn't realize I was inadvertently causing a conflict of interest. I'm an employee of the company and wanted it to be a universal account anyone could use to edit Wikipedia. I didn't realize you could edit Wikipedia without having an account.

Also, the site has been online for over four months and there hasn't been an issue. I ran into several items during its creation that were flagged as advertising, which I immediately removed in order to stay within the guidelines. I'm confused as to why all of a sudden the ENTIRE article was removed.

Posting the article took hours and hours of work, and I'm very frustrated by its sudden deletion. If you would be kind enough to flag specific examples of how we've disobeyed the rules, I would be happy to make the necessary changes to keep it online.

FMICorporation (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

First, you are communicating correctly which is appreciated.

You must produce the reliable sources as I noted above. Click the blue links in the earlier reply and familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines.

You might also take a look at the username policy, especially the section on Company names. I'll be glad to help you choose a name and create an account just for your own use. I appreciate the work you have put in. And, if the company is notable, we will be pleased to have an article on it. But Wikipedia is consistently one of the top 10 websites in the world and we must maintain a high bar for inclusion. JodyB_talk 18:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response!

I think I'm okay to create a new user name and account; will my personal name be okay to use?

Also, I can list several reasons why FMI is notable and deserves a place on Wikipedia. That being said, if I can back-up my claims, will I have to recreate the page, or would it be able to be reinstated?

207.41.32.92 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's do one thing at a time. Using the link on the left hand side "Email this user", email me your desired username and the email address you wish to associate with the account. I will create the account and you will receive an email with a randomly generated password. Use that to log in and then change your password. Then, I will move the deleted article to your userspace where you can add the sources. Afterwards, I will move the improved article back out to the mainspace where it can easily be viewed. But it is important that we take care of the account name first. JodyB_talk 23:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! I'll consider this an early Christmas gift... :)

98.26.32.82 (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, drop me a note here when you have sent the email. JodyB_talk 13:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PTC Alliance Mechanical Tube Deletion

I was just trying to get a page up for my company and tie it into a steel manufacturing process called "Drawn over mandrel" DOM. I am new to Wiki concerning this process. I would link to continue working on this page and prove that it would have value. Is there anyway to get this page back?

Thanks! Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTCA (talk • contribs) 13:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks for asking. The article was tagged by another editor because the article does not seem to meet the notability standards for Wikipedia. The existence of a company or organization does not mean that company can have an article. There must be some significant reason for the article. I would suggest you take a look at the following guidelines: WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. The other issue you have is that you have an inherent conflict of interest in this article. That doesn't mean you cannot write the article, just that you must be doubly careful of what and how you write. Other editors will look with some suspicion at your work. You really need to change your username as usernames that reflect a company are not allowed - see WP:U. After you have read and considered these things and found reliable sources to back up any claims, I will be happy to help restore the article and let you bring it into compliance with our standards. Feel free to ask any questions. Also, in the future, be sure and sign your post with ~~~~ and usually add your posts to the bottom of the page. No big deal, just the way we do things here as you will soon learn. JodyB_talk 14:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

12:23, 26 December 2008 JodyB (Talk | contribs) deleted "Bangla Mountaineering and Trekking Club" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)

I added my above first article in wikipedia. It is actually not an advertise. I am not sure why this article has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunnota (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you wish, I will restore the article to your userspace and you can work on it. But the article reads much like an advertisement or product brochure. Please take a look at WP:NPOV and make sure it is written in a very neutral tone. Let me know if you wish for me to recreate it in your userspace. After you have fixed it up I wil move it back into the mainspace of the encyclopedia. JodyB_talk 12:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

LLLLL

Would you mind reversing your speedy of LLLLL? It appears that at the RfD someone revealed that the executable name for the game was LLLLL, making it debatable whether or not the string of text was implausible. There probably isn't any harm in restoring the redirect and letting the RfD run its course and this is certainly preferable to DRV (which someone suggested there). Thanks! Protonk (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! And thanks for asking. JodyB_talk 13:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal

Contrary to this edit, User talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal is not "prep for ANI" as:

It has already been submitted to WP:ANI -- see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hrafn#Comments by Catherineyronwode. It was then referred to an WP:RFC, which was eventually deleted for failing to meet certification requirements. The AN/I discussion found no wrongdoing on my part.
The page in question has been moribund for three months.

I would therefore request you review your opinion that it is "not a speedy candidate" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Under the criteria, this should not be a speedy as it is not an attack page per se. I would send it to MfD which is a more correct move. JodyB_talk 15:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Per se? Are you kidding? I've deleted. Blatant attack page from an editor who has been harassing and attacking this editor for some time. Of no conceivable use to the encyclopedia. Written as a purported draft for posting on ANI; that has been done and oh yes, rejected (attack crap tends to be rejected like that.) Jody, I have no idea why you are reluctant to ditch this, but I have no problem removing such hostile nonsense, and have done so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to wheel war over it KC so its done as far as I am concerned. I still think MfD would have been appropriate because it is not an attack page as defined at CSD. I tend to be very conservative about CSD and give the decision to the community where there is a question. JodyB_talk 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule so am I, but that's for article space. In userspace such a sub-page gets short shrift from me unless it is actually preparing for posting elsewhere. Once its been used, though, it serves NO purpose at all except to attack or disparage. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

LabChart

Hi I've noticed you deleted the LabChart page before I could put a hangon tag there. Infact that page was not the same as I've created it and it has been played with by some people to the point of deleting all my references and the whole reason why it was suppose to be put up. can you please explain to me why it was deleted apart from supposed blatant advertising which it was not? I was pretty sure LabChart has been put for deletion before and reversed because it proved that it wasn't an advertisement! Tegu01 (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I reviewed my decision and found that the article still reads like a product brochure. I saw no evidence of a prior AfD discussion. I did see where another admin declined the speedy because of its one source. Since he disagreed then, I reversed my decision and un-deleted the article. Please note that a single source does not necessarily establish notability. In any case, I un-deleted the article and have now sent it to AfD for consideration. A note is left on your talk page. You have five days to make your case and add additional sources to verify notability of the article. If someone removes a source, discuss it on the talk page or ask me for assistance. Please note that anyone is allowed to edit the article. As its author you do not own it. That is the nature of the Wiki. Please ask any further questions you may have. JodyB_talk 16:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for UK Chemical Reaction Hazards Forum

An editor has asked for a deletion review of UK Chemical Reaction Hazards Forum. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ronhjones (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Stifle has closed the review item, does that mean I have to re-create the page from scratch again? I have re-edited http://www.crhf.org.uk/privacy.html to signify usege of material - is this sufficent?. Ronhjones (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You should have come here first and avoided the mess at DRV. I would have gladly worked with you. If you wish to release the content of the website so it can be used here you must do so under terms of the GNU license agreement. This is a one time release as you cannot undo it later. You must send an email to OTRS with the release information. Read the page WP:OTRS for a better understanding. The comment on the website is not sufficient. It must state that the material is released under one of the GFDL compatible licenses. That would mean the content can be used by anyone commercially and that the material can be changed but that you receive credit for the material used. It wouold be much easier just to reword the material and not to use the verbatim text. That would be simpler and much faster. Don't try to re-invent the wheel. Just re-word the aterial and write a new page. I will be happy to take a look after you have done so. Be sure and include reliable sources to verify the notability of the content. Also, be sure and read WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Ask any questions you desire here and I will help if I can. JodyB_talk 23:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I think I will have long re-think and eventually go down the path of re-wording the material. That seems the easier option overall. Ronhjones (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, happy to help, just let me know. This is a problem you will face with any article you write here as copyright issues are a very big deal. JodyB_talk 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)