User talk:JodyB/Archives/2007/July

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD Help

Hi, six of my articles have put up by AfD by the same person and are being voted on all by the same persons.. I was wondering if you could look the articles over and the things written on the discussion pages and give me your honest answer as to should they be up for vote or am I being paranoid? The articles are:

  • Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista
  • Vinagre Portillo
  • Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo
  • Alonso R. del Portillo
  • Alonso del Portillo-Marcano
  • Alonso del Portillo-del Junco

Last week I lost one of my articles and I thought it was a good faith AfD but now with six more up for vote this week I think there is more behind these AfD then good faith. Callelinea 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Even when I put in the discussion page of Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista that I am going to Cuba to actually do more research on the subjects? Or that Alonso R. del Portillo is written up in the book about Pedro Zamora? Or the coincidence that the same person nomininated 6 of the articles for AfD and that an IP address was created just to comment on those 6 articles? I do appreciate your imput because I feel that you are un-biased, but I honestly feel that I will be able to more adiquitly prove their notability when I return from my trip from Cuba. In Cuba I am being given access to unlimited amout of sources by the Cuban government Callelinea 16:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks anyway for your assistance, but only 2 of the 6 articles are about a living person. And my going to Cuba might have been able to meet the guidlines for notability.. Such as books subjects in. Published works in Cuba. Just because articles can not be proved in US articles or books does that make then non-notable? Callelinea 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Again let me state that is why I am going to Cuba in August.. I went through a process of asking both the US and Cuban government permission to travel to Cuba to do research on these articles and on other matters and both governments have given me permission to be in Cuba for 21 days.. I created all these articles on Cuba either based on personal knowledge or on old books that I have in my pocession. I did not want to put more on those subjects then I had proof of. Yet I do happen to know that these person are more notable then they are in their articles. That is why the WP:Cuba reviewed most of them and gave them a Stub they were a good starting point. I am aware that as they view now there may be some contension weather or not they are notable, but I placed them there to be able to add onto them in the future. Callelinea 17:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Jody, just a quick note to say thanks for participating in my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Good luck with yours and happy editing, mattbr 10:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hey Jody, I have just been reviewing your RfA and, to be honest, I haven't decided which way I will go yet as both sides make some interesting points. But I just wanted to say that you and I have very similar academic backgrounds - nursing, theology/ministry (albeit mine was in Youth Min) with the Churches of Christ and Arts (journalism, for me). However, I disagree with your view expressed in question 8 ("Do you have any examples (diffs) of your assisting in working to resolve theology/religion disputes of others?") that you don't edit in religion/theology articles due to COI. I understand you feeling it is not appropriate to edit directly the Churches of Christ article as it is your employer, but I think there is a big problem if COI is making people with qualifications feel that they shouldn't edit in their area of expertise. There are many theologically trained editors here on Wikipedia who edit theology and religion articles and I wonder if you might rethink, or at least, clarify, your position there? Additionally, I was wondering if your COI view also extends to editing in nursing and medical related articles. Thanks, Sarah 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, thanks for your questions. It's good to know that we have some similarities. Interestingly, I also have some journalism in me. I worked at the radio station at Freed-Hardeman and spent about 10 years in local radio and TV in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. As to the COI thing, I do not mean to imply that I will not edit there, but that I will be very careful in doing so. As you can see, the Church of Christ article is very contentious from time to time and rather than creating a mess, I thought I would be very careful in wading in. Some of these discussions reach back a very long way and, it seems to me, prudence suggests I walk carefully. You will note that I have contributed quite a bit on the talk page there (at least quite a bit relative to me). I expect to continue to do so. I do not worry so much about the nursing and medical areas as I no longer work in them and COI would not be an issue. I think the thing that probably best describes my approach is "caution." Truthfully, I do alot of writing and college level teaching, not to mention preaching and Bible classes. Sometimes it's just nice to explore other areas while on Wikipedia. Having said that, your comment and the question in #8 suggest that I should re-think that philosophy and I will. I will also update the RfA to clarify. I do hope you will look favorably on my nom. I would simply ask that you review my record and you will see active participation and no blots. But regardless of which way you go, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns. If I can answer any other questions, please let me know. JodyB talk 15:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA. Hiberniantears 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your revert on Furry Fandom

You reverted some of the vandalism but an IP had to revert the rest of it. I've made that mistake a few times before, but sometimes it helps to check the page history just to make sure you're getting rid of the problem entirely. Cheers, Shalom Hello 20:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I'd fixed it but it was necessary to go back to yesterday to find a clean revert. I think there were about three of us in there at the same time too. Someone has just list it at WP:RPP. Thanks again. JodyB talk 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You did it again, reverting my fix back to a randomized version. Corvus cornix 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm backing off. My last rv was at 20:58 and its already been changed around many more times. I think it has been protected. I was looking for a clean diff and rv on top of you - my bad. JodyB talk 21:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It was getting frantic there for a while.  :) Corvus cornix 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA result

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 12:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I have never previously seen an AfD where the requestee did not address any of the concerns of the oppose voters, which I found quite impressive; you were content to allow your record to speak for itself. Even though I opposed I am confident you will prove to be an excellent admin. Welcome! LessHeard vanU 12:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I thought I had addressed the concern about the gap in my editing as best I could in my nomination opening as well as the number of edits in April. I repeated it once and thought it was enough. The comment on planning to be an admin I addressed once and sismply had nothing else to say as I had made my point and trusted the community to decide. Thank you for you confidence in the above message. I can assure you that I will do my best and I am open to suggestions about my performance. JodyB talk 12:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies; I meant to say "did not address them in the discussion/voting space...", I did note your comments in your statements. However, yes, you had already discussed them in your request and felt confident enough in them to not want to clarify further to in response to specific opposes. Interesting tactic... Bodes well, I believe. LessHeard vanU 12:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
No, no. No concerns, I understood. Just restating. And again thanks. JodyB talk 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Congrats=)Politics rule 13:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Congrats, JobyB...well deserved. If you ever have a question or need a second look, you know where to find me. On an unrelated note, what do you think of the bot proposal at the bottom of the WikiProject Alabama talk page? - auburnpilot talk 15:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and I do appreciate your support and your offer for help. I think the bot idea is good and I added a comment there. It sure would make life a lot easier. JodyB talk 15:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

One fellow new admin helping out another :-). Daniel Case 15:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Access

Granted. —Sean Whitton / 20:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate pages

I reverted this page blanked by the creator of the page after it had been edited by others. After checking the user's history I discovered that a replacement page was created Deewar - A Wall I have posted a notice on the user's talk page. I do not know how to proceed from here. It would appear that Deewar (TV serial) is the better of the two titles. Being fairly new to Wikipedia myself, this is over my head so I am requesting help in terms of how to proceed from this point. Thank you Dbiel (Talk) 01:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss this on the talk page of the article in question, likely the newest one would be best. The editors must reach consensus among themselves. Then the remaining page can serve as a redirect. JodyB talk 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I fail to express myself well, or maybe I just do not understand the proceedures. As far as which name to use, I do understand that is a local editor issue that needs to be discussed. The main issue, which only an admin can handle is the problem of blanking a page and then starting over on a new page rather than using the move command. The result of blanking is that all of the history is functionally deleted. There is nothing on the new page that points back to the fact that there was an original page. Now if this is considered accpetable, then I will drop the subject; but as I understand it, it is an unacceptable practice to using blanking and copy paste to change the name of an article, and that the problem when it does happen needs to be addressed. Am I wrong? Dbiel (Talk) 05:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Since there was no reply on the article talk page, my guess is that it was overlooked (very easy to do with the number of pages you post to), so I have moved the discussion here. There is no need to go into editor differences, as stated by you, that needs to be disscussed between the editors on the article talk pages. This only relates to the policy related to deleting history files by failing to use the move command and using the copy and paste method instead. Dbiel (Talk) 07:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand now, sorry for not seeing what you were saying. You are correct that the page should have been moved rather than a complete restart. I think the best thing now is to create a redirect from one to the other. I'll be glad to do that if you like but there needs to be consensus as to which article becomes the main one. However, blanking a page does not delete the history, it remains and can be found on the history tab. If however the page is actually deleted such history is deleted too. Actually it is still available but only visible to admins. In any case would you like me to create the redirect? JodyB talk 11:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and redirected the new article back to the old one; from A Wall to (TV serial). This is the only way to properly deal with the problem. BTW, I am not an admin at this point. Such a move is possible for any editor to make. Please see WP:REDIRECT for instructions. Of course, I am happy to assist at any time. JodyB talk 12:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it. The reason for asking an admin was I believe that they have the ability to merger the history files from the two separate articles rather than leaving some of them as history of the redirect page when in reality they are history of the article page. But in this case, it probably does not make that much of a difference. Thanks again for taking care of it. Dbiel (Talk) 21:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza article

Thanks for protecting the Great Pyramid of Giza, however, the locked version is the version that has the WP:FRINGE and WP:POV content that has been added constantly to the page for the last 2 months. Is there anyway to revert it back to the generally accepted version that keeps being changed by the same individual and their sockpuppets? Cheers. Markh 17:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think someone already has. JodyB talk 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think protection was appropriate. If you look closely, there was only one person reverting to one revision, and several reverting to another. Factor in the fact that the lone one, User:Narinen has done nothing but revert that article and revert their userpage, and mentioned 3RR in one of their edit summaries, I think unprotecting the page is now appropriate. --Deskana (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I'm talking with Alf too since he's been in it. Did not know about the userpage issue. Both were calling the other's reverts vandalism and it seemed to be spiraling. If he is a sock has he been blocked yet? Anyway, I'm sure not dogmatic about it and will be pleased to change it back to semi. Let me hear from Alf. JodyB talk 17:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I blocked Narinen. They were clearly a sockpuppet, and even if he wasn't he was being extremely disruptive and clearly knew our rules didn't approve, since he knows about 3RR. --Deskana (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI

On a vandalism only account like User:Templebirddz just block the account indef using vandalism only account as the reason. It's obvious they won't stop so it's just easier for all involved to indef block the account. If it looks like honest mistake vandalism, yeah, be a little more understanding but for the other kind of stuff, it's better just to block. -- Tawker 03:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Block

You shouldn't block an IP indef, but I moved it up to 20 days, due to the severity of the vandalism. Клоун 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the information. WP:LEGAL made me wonder although I knew blocking IP's can cause collateral damage. JodyB talk 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Although unfortunately your comment came after the nomination's closing time, I am nonetheless Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

why was my page deleted?

Hi Jody, I'm just curious to know why my definition for Two Rivers Gallery was deleted? It's a significant institution here in Northern BC and I'm not sure why it was deleted from wikipedia. thankyou Tworiversgallery 23:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. The article was deleted because it did not seem to satisfy the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. There were no sources at all which are required under the verification policy. In addition, given your user name, there was a concern that this was an advertising placed by the gallery itself. In other words, a conflict of interest seemed to exist. If you wish to bring reliable sources to the article to establish notability I will undelete the article. In this case, someone else, a non-admin, saw the article and marked it for deletion. I cannot guarantee it won't happen again if you fail to add multiple, non-trivial sources to the article. Let me know what you intend to do and I will help as I can. Thanks JodyB talk 03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

DB-nonsense deletion?

With all due respect. Rock Chicken is a small game played through out the Marine Corps. One guy learns it and passes it on the the next. and it is gaining popularity amongst the deployed marines. I thought if we could make it official, then we could allow for other marines to join in the fun and share the wealth. I'd really like for it to be en entry, nothing major, but something for marines to see that they can achieve. and theres more to just playing card games during downtime. PLease tell me any corrections that might make it more noteworthy, thanks

Thanks for your question. The article was deleted for much the same reason as the article mentioned in the section directly above this one. It has to have some kind of sourcing to establish notability. Perhaps a Marine Corp newspaper or armed forces report of some kind. If you can find those kind of sources I will undelete it immediately. You might take a look at WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. JodyB talk 03:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted?

Just kidding!! Thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  09:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

King Edward's School Song

Hi Jody,
I posted my reasoning here:
Talk:King_Edward's_School,_Birmingham#School_Song

Any suggestions?
Thanks, Seam.us 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD

People have so far been rude and been questioning at Template talk:User Ashkenazi Smart. Would it be appropriate to delete the page? I opened up a can of worms. Joie de Vivre° 18:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

At this moment I do not think we should delete it as it explains what happened. Perhaps in time. JodyB talk 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted?

Hi, I added ETSS, it did not have copyrighted material, nor it was advertisement, it was brief, to the point information. Moreover, should not I get an email when something is deleted? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmushtaq (talk • contribs) 09:49, 13 July 2007

Why are you touching my personal pages?

The logs say you deleted my "notes" page...

What is that all about? It says it was deleted for little or no content...which was untrue...there was like 1 page and a half of stuff I was trying to hold onto...

It was like my sandbox dude, why did you delete it? --Huper Phuff talk 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the page that you deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Huperphuff/notes&action=edit --Huper Phuff talk 15:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's back in the same form as when it was deleted. It is still tagged for speedy deletion because you placed all the speedy tags there. When you place a speedy tag on your own page it will be deleted. Use nowiki codes instead, Thanks JodyB talk 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian Vincenz

Hi, I was just about to edit that article for it to hang on a second.... could you please undelete it. Thanks. Mathmo Talk 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the reply with your explaination. The article was tagged with {{db-bio}}, which is different from violating WP:BLP. Thus the other editor was not tagging the article for WP:BLP violation. So that covers their potential concerns, as for your concerns. You say it is linking to a fan page, when this is not fan created content but Tyler Hamilton's offical website. If he was to write seriously false accusations he would run into major legal problems that would impact his own court cases. A person would be fool hardy to risk his future career on making such statements if they are not true. 06:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that the article was tagged a bio, not BLP. Actually the BLP problem is still very real regardless of how it was tagged. But the bio tag suggested the article was about a person without notability. Certainly one cannot assess notability without reliable sources and in this case, because the charge made is quite serious, it cannot remain unless it is adequately sourced. In essence, your problem is the same regardless of whether it is a bio problem or a BLP problem. Now, as to the sufficiency of the source, please read completely the policy on verification, especially the section on self-published sources. You have two options. Get another reliable source that backs up the statement and I will be happy to undelete. Or, you can go to deletion review and make your case there. Please know that I will be on a short wikibreak beginning tomorrow morning. I most likely won't be back for a week. I'm not trying to be a hard nose about this but we have standards that we need to meet. Thanks. JodyB talk 14:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Why my page about H.264 Stream was deleted?

Hi, Could you Tell me why H.264 Stream Editor Page was deleted.I gave a brief description about the application. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjula s23 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 18 July 2007

Virtual classroom

We now have coaching pages for everyone. See the links in the VC lessons box above. (There's something waiting for you on your page).  :-) The Transhumanist    18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


We just got a new co-coach, and I got inspired and wrote up a whole slew of coaching instructions for him. You may find them useful as well, so please take a look at his coaching page. The Transhumanist    00:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey JodyB, I noticed your removal of the speedy deletion for the Wahhabi Controversial Fatwa page. I wanted to bring up a discussion about this - both Roger and myself feel that it is in fact an attack page. Now I know you already expressed that you didn't and respect that, but I was hoping that you could review the discussions here and here. I've seen this sort of stuff on Islamic type sites and it's generally a fairly standard form of "stealth" vandalism used to discredit certain Muslim figures, in this case the two above men specifically. I'd like to request that the template for speedy deletion be added again, after your review the above discussions and this one as well. While criticism and information about controversy is helpful for articles about people on Wikipedia, I really feel intentional misinformation and insertion of POV isn't, this article being a good example of both. MezzoMezzo 00:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi MezzoMezzo. Thanks for bringing your concern here and stating it in such a calm and professional manner. You and Roger may be exactly correct, at this point I am simply not sure. But it is clear that some people who edit Islamic articles disagree. Therefore, the speedy tag doesn't seem appropriate. It does not contain potentially libelous material which would be a certain undeniable reason to delete. Also, it is sourced. Nevertheless, I am willing to take this over to the administrators noticeboard and let someone else take a look. If they disagree with me, I will not contest their decisions to delete it. If their decision is not acceptable you should take it to WP:AFD and let the broader community decide. Is that fair enough? Let me know what you think. In the meantime I will post at the noticeboard. Thanks for your work. JodyB yak, yak, yak 01:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The article would be deleted anyway if you do send it to WP:AFD or even WP:PROD. Process for process' sake will only be a waste of everyone's time. That's why we have WP:BOLD, as long as you can back up your actions via policy if you do invoke it. —Kurykh 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#I_have_a_question

Bleh999 posted the following intepretation of your words:

"I strongly disagree, besides there is no consensus that users involved in edit conflicts on articles or templates up for deletion or conflicts of interest may speedily close a deletion request we may as well let administrators ban users who they have edit conflicts with as well, the principle is the same that one cannot objectively arrive at decisions if you are deeply involved. also read the comments by JodyB A delete, even if unanimous, should probably still be closed by an admin since closure is only one part of the process. The page must still be deleted and only an admin can do that. Otherwise, the page may not be deleted even though the discussion is closed. your closure was inappropriate and disruptive, you could have simply waited for an administrator to close it."

Could you please confirm that this is your view? As I understand your position, there is no problem with a user closing a discussion, except when there is a delete.

Two or three other admins have also expressed this position, but as you can see, he expresses that there is no consensus.

Feel free to comment on the other aspects (including my alleged COI), but I am very interested in your clarification. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and my apologies for drawing you into this storm in a tea cup and for changing your gender ;). Thanks!--Cerejota 12:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Regarding Korn's Newest Effort

I noticed (well, according to the information here) that you've protected the article containing the content of metal band Korn's newest effort.

There was a skinny on some recent trivia I ask to be put. Considering the content, the band the trivia regards, it should have every right to be placed in with the others (trivia, 'course!).

The trivia I ask to be added is below:

"Innocent Bystander" contains a guitar solo, a Korn first.

I am hoping you can see why this WOULD be trivia and not a massless tidbit.

Get back to me soon, Jacobcraft —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobcraft (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 July 2007

VC class project

I've started a classroom assignment (for all the students at the VC) - the bringing of an article to featured article status. We'll all be working together and will be following Dweller's instructions in his lesson on the VC lesson template. I've never done a WP:FAC before, so I'm a student and a coach on this one. As a co-coach, I really hope you will join in - this'll be a fun team effort. And the subject, the meaning of life, is sufficiently broad to have meaning for everyone involved. I'll see you on the meaning of life's talk page. (By the way, there's a quiz waiting for you on your coaching page. The Transhumanist 20:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Anna Mae He

On July 21, you deleted the page at "Anna Mae He" (with quotes) [1]. It was just a redirect to Anna Mae He (correct title without quotes), so you probably thought it could be deleted without problem. However, the article currently at Anna Mae He clearly looks like someone copied and pasted rendered text as WikiSource, losing the the formatting and links. Then someone polished up the formatting, but we've still lost all the links.

I'm not an admin, so I can't see what was at "Anna Mae He", but I suspect that's where it was copied and pasted from. Please look at the history and see if the full page text was there, and if so please copy and paste the WikiSource back into the page, or give me access so I can fix it. — Randall Bart (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I found: The one with quotes was created about an hour after the present version. The deleted version shows nothing in its history but the original redirect and then, about 16 hours later, the CSD tag. I do see what you are talking about in the present version but I am not sure why it happened. It does look like a copy & paste but I am not sure from where. I will undelete the page for a day to let you see what I am talking about but I think you will be stuck rebuilding the links. You might try and contact the original author but she has no other contributions and no talk or user page. Let me know when you've had a look. Otherwise I will re-delete at 1300 UTC on 25 July. JodyB yak, yak, yak 13:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's just as you said, so go ahead an redelete. Thanx for trying. It looks perfectly obvious that text was copied and pasted, but how can we find where? Shaoqiang He (father) and Robert L. Childers (judge) date to February. Shaoqiang He also has a piped link saying [[Qin Luo He|Qin Luo "Casey" He]] (mother), yet there is no article under either title. On May 28, User:Doc glasgow deleted an earlier page [2]. Is that version available somewhere? I am familiar enough with Doc glasgow to know I don't care to deal with him. — Randall Bart (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The deleted article you mention that was deleted by Doc had some pretty serious WP:BLP problems and was the subject of edit waring. I had a look but there were few citations in it. It may be the present article was recreated with some cut and paste from the old but I can't be sure. Because of the BLP problems I'm not going to undelete it as I don't really think it would help you. It may be that you are just stuck with having to recreate the internal links and cites.. I am sorry for your trouble but do appreciate your work. JodyB yak, yak, yak 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere in the deleted history there must be a version quite similar to what is there now, but with the links (and there were 11). There was edit warring, and I am sure there were WP:BLP violations. One username clearly suggests bias. However the case is a major case, and edit warring does not justify deletion. I am not going to step into an edit war (especially on a topic I haven't been following). I am putting a list of links on the talk page, and leaving it for sumbuddy else to fix. — Randall Bart (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry for using the wrong number (A1 instead of A7) on the CSD tag, I was having a brain freeze. Ariel♥Gold 11:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, gone is gone. JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Adoption Request

Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Vandalism

Hi, it appears you've blocked User talk:Dcs1 after my request - thanks! - but the info didn't show on the guy's talk page, and several other user have submitted similar requests since. Can you add the appropriate template? Thanks a bunch! --Targeman 01:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, please disregard this message, done already :-) --Targeman 01:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you
Thank you for your opposition of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement.
—TomStar81 (Talk) 05:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

List of folk-blues musicians

All this list needs is a lead section. The reference section was there. Could you undelete so I can add the lead section, per WP:LIST. WP:LIST says absolutely nothing about "lists must contain something more than a link" once a lead section, criteria for inclusion and references are made. It says nothing on that matter at all, and is the guideline dictating lists. As an administrator, I was hoping you would realize most votes were opinions not based on any policy or guideline. Stuff like the essay WP:Listcruft, delete in favor of categorization in defiance of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. These were all opinions that had no basis in policy, which should be the ultimate say when deleting an item. Please consider these arguments. Thanks. (Mind meal 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

The article is at User:Mind meal/List of Folk-blues musicians, do what you can and you can move it back into the mainspace. As to you other comments, none of the above references are policies, only guidelines or an essay. The consensus was, in my judgment, that the article should not stand. In any case fix it up and we will see. JodyB yak, yak, yak 16:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't use any essay as grounds for anything. Only guidelines, which require consensus. Guideline:It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. What part of that is not true, and should be ignored? As an administrator, you are to uphold policy and guidelines. The problem, of course, is that the consensus was arrived at against both here. Just look at the rationale for most of the votes. Those are not reasons for deleting anything. That was the problem I see with many votes at articles for deletion in general, with people voting to delete lists against standing policy and guidelines over and over again even after being told. In short, they thumb their nose at current guidelines and are in violation of WP:POINT. It is my belief that it is highly innappropriate to vote this way to delete an article. If someone does not like current policy, they should try to gain consensus for their idea instead of willfully and knowingly voting against current guidelines and consensus in favor of their own deletionist bias. Surely if you take a look at many of the votes for deletion that the rationale given has no grounding in any standing policy or guideline whatsoever. i am a bit disappointed that an administrator would not see this and act accordingly. (Mind meal 06:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

The case against the case against:

  1. Appears to violate WP:NOT#LINK (specifically item 2). I am not saying it may be considered interesting or useful, but it is not what an encyclopedia is, per policy. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC) (page created to complete AFD nomination by User:Pharmboy)

WP:NOT#LINK says: Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with the organisation of articles. Please follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Lists#List naming and list contents.

  • Delete Listcruft, listcruft, listcruft. Blueboy 96 00:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:Listcruft is not a policy or guideline, just an essay without consensus.

  • Delete: This list is already a Category: Category:Folk-blues musicians, which is what it should remain as. Should be Speedy under WP:CSD#A3. User:Hu

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes does not support this opinion at all, and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes is a guideline, not an opinion.

  • Delete I still think this should be deleted because this list is no more useful than the category User:Corpx 09:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not in the spirt of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes yet again.

  • Delete. Ought to be a category, not a list. User:SethTisue 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, see above.

  • Delete. Whenever a category exists that is virtually identical to a list article, the list article should be deleted, as categories are much easier to maintain. User:Realkyhick 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the founded in policy at all?

  • Delete. Obvious since I nominated it. It should be a category, not an article, and all the other lists that are similar should follow suit. User:Pharmboy 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you starting to see the problem here or not? These people are ignorant of policy and vote against it.

I could go on and on, but this alone should be enough evidence to find that this deletion was incorrect and the users should be notified of what policy and guidelines arrived at per consensus say on the matter. Otherwise, why have policies and why have guidelines if nobody, least of all administrators, will uphold them? Please delete this once you have looked it over, as I don't want to consume your talk page. (Mind meal 06:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Actually, you did go on and on, but that's fine if it makes you feel better. Again, there was no policy violated and the community determined against you. I was happy to re-create the article and did so and placed it in your user space for you to work on. I stand by my decision, now lets move on. JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I saw your comment on this AfD on ANI, adn i have reveiwed it. I was troubeld by your comment that "there was no consensus to keep". I hope that I need not remind you that ther must be a consensu to delete, and that in the absence of a clear consensus, a page should be kept by default. Havign looked at the AFD, IMO your close was not unreasoanbel, although i might well have clsoed as "no consensus" and therefore kept. There were surely greater numbers favoring deletion, but signifanct argumets favorign retention. But were this brought up at DRV, i would say, "endorse, no violation of process". Userfication was probably a good idea. DES (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

My RFA
User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Churches of Christ

Hey I'd just like to point out that you have reverted this page 3 times in the last 24 hours. The edits aren't vandalism, and as such are not exempt from 3rr. i (said) (did) 04:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Good morning i, Thank you for your comment. I am quite familiar with 3RR and assure you that I have no desire to violate it. I am happy to explain what happened. The edits you mention were in response to an editor who 1.) refused to come to the talk page to actually discuss his edits, 2.) repeatedly made the same wholesale edits over and over, 3.) who used inflammatory, personal attack-style rhetoric in edit summaries, 4.)who, when he did come to the talk page didn't discuss edits but rather made silly accusations and leveled foolish charges against involved editors [3], and 5.) who was blocked for vandalism by another administrator for a month; a block given for edits at the Church of Christ article in connection with the edits I made. I did not block him myself because I sought to avoid the appearance of misusing my tools. Nor did I re-protect the page for the same reason. At the time he was blocked I was in the process of writing it up at WP:AIV. Generally, edit conflicts do not rise to the level of vandalism. But notice this from the vandalism policy: "Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." I would argue that the IP editor made his bad-faith inarguably explicit. He was invited to the talk page in both edit summaries and on his discussion page. We tried to involve him in a productive way. Of course, I know that you probably didn't have the time to research all of this and that you were trying to prevent a 3RR violation, all of which I appreciate. But these are the facts of what happened. JodyB yak, yak, yak 10:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I was aware of the contention on that page, if you look further down the history, I had reverted it several times before, and after it became clear that the two IPs were not going to discuss it, I requested it to be protected; the article has been reverted at least 20 times in the past three days, and thats only including ones where the edit summaries explicitly say they've been reverted. Again, I only mention to let you know. i (said) (did) 11:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, JodyB, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy UCP 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag

You're it! Hey JodyB! Good to meet someone who is near me and working towards making Wikipedia a great place! Let me know if you need any help with anything. I'll be happy to help work on anything technical (like computers or related things) or anything that is local to us. --Mnemnoch 23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Mnemnoch's Talk Page