User talk:JodyB/Archive 23

Notification

Hi-You notified myself that I was mentioned on some administrator's noticeboard. When I look at it-I was never mentioned. Please clarified this I am not sure what I had done. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

I love it when an old name shows up in my watchlist. :) Welcome back, JodyB! Acalamari 16:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! I appreciate the welcome and look forward to being around. JodyB _talk 16:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Welcome back from me as well, we need all the help we can get, especially the old-timers like us. Secret ^account 18:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• ha! Old is more and more right every day. JodyB _talk 19:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall that we've interacted before (apologies if I've forgotten), but there's plenty to do, so happy to see you active again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! Good to see you again. I can't say the place is in great shape, but anyhow... MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

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) 05:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daphne, Alabama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hurricane Danny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bernie Warren

Hi Jody This is Bernie Warren here ...one of mys students alerted me to your comments. First I hold the copyright to all the other links you mention except Arts Health Australia who I have repeatedly asked to take down the material they have up on their site about me (Moved by JodyB to the proper location on the pageJodyB _talk 22:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC))

The copyright question is only part of the problem. In order to resolve that issue you will have to communicate with OTRS to confirm that you are who you say you are and to release the information in an acceptable license. But the other problem is whether your work rises to the point of notability. Not everyone and not every topic has an article here nor should they. I mean no disrespect when I question that about the article but that is the accepted standard in the Wikipedia community. JodyB _talk 22:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

csd of User:Estebanissupersexy8

hello;

since you seem to have missed or ignored my talkpage comment on the matter, please explain to me here, how you feel that this userpage: User:Estebanissupersexy8

met the criteria for csd? because i don't see it. Wikipedia:CSD#U1

thank-you

Lx 121 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I am on my non-admin account at the moment because I am not on a secure site. But I will check the page again and get back to you. JodyB-open (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I misread the CSD notice and thought it was a request from a user to delete in his userpage. It appeared to be nothing but sillyness and childishness and I, having misread the CSD deleted it. I should have looked closer and paid attention to the talk page. My apologies. If the user wishes it restored just have him ask and I will restore it. The page is not salted so he can recreate it if he prefers. JodyB _talk 03:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Archive

I'm very bad at these things indeed, but the example says Y/F not F/Y (whatever that means). Could that possibly be it? Yngvadottir (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so but I will try it. I think that is just a formatting thing but let's see.JodyB _talk 18:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, It is now working before I changed anything.JodyB _talk 18:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ip 23.241.51.168

Hi. A few fays ago I asked if you could block that IP user for his constant spamming/vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Vandalism

Here's his page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:23.241.51.168

Well he's come back and started to vandalize again after the block expired. I was wondering if you could block him for alittle longer since this is just purposeful and presistent vandalism with no regard for rules or conduct.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I might suggest you go back through the article and look for edits that might have gotten past your notice. He's blocked for a month. JodyB _talk 17:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

ThanksGiantdevilfish (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

PSIA article deletion

Dear JodyB,

On Nov. 15 you deleted an article on the Physical Security Interoperability Alliance (PSIA) on the basis of copyright infringement, citing the PSIA site, www.psialliance.org, as the copyright holder. This site has a Creative Commons license, which would allow Wikipedia to use material from the site. The PSIA site was also properly cited in footnotes.

Please restore the article, or allow me to restore it from my sandbox.

The PSIA, which is developing interoperability specifications for security equipment (e.g., surveillance cameras, employing badging systems) is similar to other standards groups working in specific industrial areas. An organization similar to PSIA, known as ONVIF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ONVIF), has had an article on Wikipedia for some time.

Regards, Slavictechwriter (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)SlavicWriter

I have restored the page, but unless you give it a fast rewrite to reflect its notability it will soon be deleted again. You must emply reliabe sources to verify the notability of the subject. just because it exists does not mean it deserves an article. JodyB _talk 20:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

JodyB,

This is doable. Please give me a few days.

Slavictechwriter (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)SlavicTechWriter

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Talkback

Hello, JodyB. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 02:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish Fort High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fairhope, Alabama may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2007, Fairhope was named the second best small town in the south by Southern Living magazine.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.al.com/live/2009/01/south_alabama_places_ranked_hi.html|title=South
• readers|author=Russ Henderson|work=Press-Register|date=January 7, 2007|accessdate=November 26, 2013]]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daphne, Alabama

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Daphne, Alabama you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsguy17 -- Sportsguy17 (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daphne, Alabama

The article Daphne, Alabama you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Daphne, Alabama for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsguy17 -- Sportsguy17 (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JodyB. You have new messages at Talk:Daphne, Alabama/GA1.
Message added 03:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 03:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage‎

Hi, admins do not need to be added to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage‎ as they already have access. Usually as part of an admin promotion their entry is removed, and if demoted they can be added back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

Cloak request

1800 Vending Edit Request

I've made an edit request on the 1800Vending wikipedia page here . Could you help me make these edits? 23.30.60.249 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Are you talking about the request from October? I don't see anything else there. Let me know and I will be happy to help if I can. JodyB _talk 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's the one. That contains some suggested changes to help clarify the article. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions or need some sources for further information.23.30.60.249 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look shortly. I will leave my comments there on the talk page of the article. JodyB _talk 17:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:ProudIrishAspie

Hello JodyB. Thanks for your closure of the ban discussion. For completeness, would you consider logging this editor's topic ban in WP:RESTRICT? EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, someone already did. I would have done it but didn't know the page was there. JodyB _talk 12:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

IRC Cloak Request

IRC cloak request please. JodyB _talk 13:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers

I believe that in deleting Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers, you interpreted the consensus of the discussion incorrectly. First off, although I realise it wasn't a vote, there were three participants in favour of deletion and three in favour of keeping and improving the article. So, if it had been a vote, the outcome would have been a tie, which is manifestly not a consensus for deletion. But that aside, your "discounting" of WP:OSE was - if you check closely - a contradiction of WP:OSE; and your claim that the article was "obviously" a listing suggests not analysis of the discussion, but bias*. I believe that if you had based your decision upon quality of argument, you would have decided in favour of keeping the article. I would be grateful if you could therefore undelete it, to avoid any need for a WP:Deletion review. (*This is not a suggestion of bad faith; please see WP:TE if you would like confirmation that it is not.) zazpot (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your message here. We disagree on the outcome. I stand by my decision. I will not delete it but I will not actively oppose your effort at a deletion review. I will of course answer questions if asked. My point regarding OSE is that just because there are other similar articles their existence does not necessarily support the existence of this particular article. As far as list v article that is not a bias and I do not assume bad faith. I have no bias for or against lists, articles, you, other editors or the subject generally. There was also a serious question of notability verified by independent reliable sources. I have no ill will toward you or anyone else. I just closed as I thought appropriate. JodyB _talk 00:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was not suggesting you possessed a bias against lists; rather that your interpretation as an "obvious" list of what, to me, was an obvious comparative table, implies an obvious difference of interpretation. I see a clear distinction between the two formats, but you appear not to; and your not doing so seems to have biased your interpretation of the article such that you mistakenly concluded it was a list. As for notability, your claim that "notability cannot be established" is not supported by any evidence, and is therefore not a sound basis upon which to delete; moreover, the support offered by WP:OSE comes into play on this front. Anyhow, I, likewise, have no ill will; I merely feel the decision to delete was not justified by Wikipedia policy. I have requested a review (see below). zazpot (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Noted, please sign in the future JodyB _talk 03:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kapampangan Development Foundation

This is clearly not a keep consensus. at best, a no consensus. It seems you have supplied your own supervote. can I ask why? LibStar (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. AFD is not about votes, it is about policy. But, if consensus was, as you suggest, "no consensus" then the article would have stayed anyway. But, as I mentioned in my close, there were two newspapers, at least one of which was at least a regional paper which carried what I thought was non-trivial coverage of the organization. It was clear also that the organization had an impact on the people of the area. True, the article is not well written and more sources could be brought to bear but of courser formatting is not a reason to delete. Again, thank you for your question. JodyB _talk 23:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be kept under no consensus but for the record no consensus is not the same as a keep consensus. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that the consensus was "keep" but I will allow that one might reason that I should have said "no consensus" but isn't the end result the same? JodyB _talk 00:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kapampangan Development Foundation

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kapampangan Development Foundation. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilgehan demir

Hello, you deleted Bilgehan demir during the middle of an AfD with no rationale provided at the page history or at the AfD discussion itself. In addition, the same article is now bizarrely the subject of a "new AfD" - here. Please re-open the original AfD and allow discussion to run for a whole week or until consensus has been reached, as per standard protocol, or cite which Criteria for speedy deletion apply, deleting both articles. Thanks, C679 16:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually ended up deleting the redirect which was created after the AFD was posted. I did not delete the actual article. Since the actual article is running at AFD as you mentioned I'm happy to let it run. I will make an appropriate note at the AFD. Totally my fault here. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. JodyB _talk 17:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked again and added an A7 note to the redirect deletion. I then looked again at the article itself and the current afd and speedied it also. If someone wants it usefied I am happy to do that too. If you think it should not have been A7'd please let me know that too. Thanks for pointing out my error. JodyB _talk 17:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, looks fine to me now. Thanks, C679 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

IRC Cloak Request

I am requesting a cloak. JodyB _talk 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi i just want to you i'm from baldwin county too happy editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy131 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've seen you working and figured you were either from here or had a connection. I'm in Daphne and have been around here for several years. Let me know how I can help you with anything. I'm really focused on the Daphne, Alabama article and trying to move it to GA status. All the best! JodyB _talk 20:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Phyllis Dobbs

Hi, I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak so I won't give a long answer, but the AFD close (which was over five years ago, so you'll have to forgive my foggy memory) was to keep three articles and close the rest as "no consensus". I certainly wasn't opposed to merges happening, which to my mind seems the most sensible course of action, but there wasn't a consensus for any in that discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC).

Kafziel arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

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 reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

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) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blakeley, Alabama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ono Island, Alabama may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2013|work=AL.com}}</ref> and former [[National Football League|NFL]] great [[Kenny Stabler]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.al.com/live/2008/10/stablers_estranged_wife_asks_j.html|title=Stabler's
• judge to change house deal|author=Brendan Kirby|date=October 19, 2008|accessdate=December 20, 2013]]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Riggenbach

The AfD page says Riggenbach was relisted. But you've deleted it. Seems one or the other is a mistake. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In the rationale for the close I explained I pressed the wrong button. I will see if it is still hung up somewhere. Thanks for letting me know. JodyB _talk 19:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it, I removed the template from the current log. The AFD is closed as delete. JodyB _talk 19:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JodyB. You have new messages at Talk:Daphne, Alabama/GA1.
Message added 03:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 03:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions on Daphne, Alabama and it will be a GA soon. Ping me when you want to open your next GA review and I am more than happy to pick up where we left off. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 03:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daphne, Alabama

The article Daphne, Alabama you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Daphne, Alabama for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsguy17 -- Sportsguy17 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and advice. I'll get back to you soon. And thanks for the barnstar! JodyB _talk 13:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete the article of ER character Ray Barnett was unnecessary

Deleting the page of the ER character Ray Barnett was unnecessary, regardless of what the problem was. What was it? BattleshipMan (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to userfy to your userspace if you can bring some notability to it. It languised for 5 years and spent over a month at AFD. But if you want to improve it just say so. JodyB _talk 13:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

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 reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

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) 13:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Goldar

Could you please restore the page history of this article so I can do a merge to the proper location where it should have redirected to? When deletion discussions close as "redirect", I have never seen anyone delete the whole page's history in the process.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done JodyB _talk 18:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

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 reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia 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) 23:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

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) 11:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

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) 14:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

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) 22:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

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) 15:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

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 reviews: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

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 reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of 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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: 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) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014

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: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars 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) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

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 reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Reg deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demantra page in wikipedia

Ganesh Shankar Nagarajan (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Dear Jody,

I was trying to get information about Demantra and its versions. I could see that page has been deleted by your name. Below is the page link which I am referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demantra

May I know, would it be available or the reason behind the deletion, as many people like me would try to access and get the information which was very much useful.

Thanks, Ganesh Shankar

05:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look this morning. JodyB _talk 11:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the page in 2007? Wow. Hasn't been very important to you I guess. The page was deleted because it was judged to be spam. Wikipedia is not a point of advertising. The article offered nothing significant besides a promotion of the company. There was nothing which suggested that the company was notable. You may recreate the article but please be familiar with wp:n, wp:rs and other policies and guidelines. If you wish, please recreate an article in your user sandbox and I will review it and make comments for you. Thank you for your inquiry. JodyB _talk 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare 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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce 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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 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 reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing 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) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm Happy to be Back!

After a sketchy hiatus, I am happy to be back at work on Wikipedia. There are few things I enjoy more than working on the encyclopedia but sometimes life is busy and requires my attention otherwise. I plan to ease back into my admin work and will probably spend considerable time lurking about the noticeboards before doing much. I will be away for about 10 days at the end of the month but otherwise I should be available. I am especially happy to help new users and look forward to meeting some new faces. JodyB _talk 12:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Langone

Keep? Where can I contest this? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Two choices I believe. If you think there was an error you can go to WP:DELREV. Otherwise you can renominate it later. I am curious however. Why so important to have it deleted? I've had issues taken to review before but I don't think I've had a "keep" taken there. JodyB _talk 15:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I also request that you review your close. The numerical consensus was delete (yes, I know, not a vote); of the keep votes 1 is blocked now, and none of the keeps provide any basis in policy. This is a BLP article sourced solely to associated sources (and one passing reference). --Tgeairn (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I did not know someone was blocked. That could have had an impact but at this point I do not know. You are correct it is not a vote. However, counting you there were 5 to Delete and 5 to Keep. I discounted one Delete which was without basis (years since worked on). That left me with a close call and certainly no consensus either way. There were no BLP issues raised. It is not required that he meet the WP:ACADEMIC guideline as he may also qualify under WP:GNG. In my judgement, he passed. The question you raised, and was raised in the discussion, concerned whether he was too close to some of the groups that published him. I don't think so and it's certainly not self-published. In any case, I am not offended if you wish to go to deletion review. I have no dog in this fight. I will present there what I have just presented to you. Thanks for stopping by and all the best! JodyB _talk 15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I now see the person was blocked, unblocked and reblocked for harassing you. Are you suggesting their comments in the discussion was driven by that conflict? Their comments, even if you do not agree, seem to be on point. JodyB _talk 15:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I'll just AGF on that issue. I disagree with their assessment (the journals and such in this field are all very tightly interwoven and "peer" reviewed by one another). The editing environment around all of these anti-NRM people and articles is so vitriolic that I'm highly unlikely to bother with a review. If Cwobeel wants to, I'll endorse it though. Thank you for taking another look, and welcome back! Tgeairn (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

ARTHC Site

I have talked to other staff, and they put me onto you

I want to know WHY you deleted the Arthc site

I had fixed the problems and could not see any other.

ArthcGundagai (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your question. I appreciate your work on Arthc but there were some problems remaining with the article. Your article was suggested for deletion by another editor. I reviewed that request and concurred. First, the entity does not yet exist. It cannot be "iconic" until it comes into existence. Second, the article makes no claim of notability. Even if it did exist, that alone would not make it worthy of an article. Next, the sound of the article was very promotional, like something you would read on a flyer or poster. Our purpose is not to serve as a promotional vehicle. Finally, the article had no reliable sources to back the claims it made. There is no way to verify anything said in the article. It might be useful to read the following articles: Verification, Notability and Reliable Sources. Thank you again for your question. JodyB _talk 12:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Close of Top Hat Trading AfD

I see your close as causing more work than it saves. There was one delete vote and one leaning vote. Your close degrades the AfD process, as it might as well be a speedy delete. You gave no justification. Please reverse your close. — Neonorange (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your question. Closing an AFD is not about counting votes. It is about evaluating both consensus and policy. If you wish, I will move the article to your user space so you can add appropriate sources. Once that is done it can be moved to mainspace. However, I must decline your request. Alternatively, you can ask that case be reviewed at deletion review. JodyB _talk 02:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Closing these things can't be a lot of fun. Mainly, I think you would have better served the encyclopedia by waiting. Clear consensus was not on the discussion page. The creator is almost certainly paid-COI. Better to have waited a bit for one more reply from the creator that showed willfull-misunderstanding of the comments (enough rope). Now I expect the a more subtle repeat. Restoration to user-space would be counterproductive; so was the close a day or two early. A suggestion for nest time—read between the lines. — Neonorange (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts. The central issue in my eyes was the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I have access to LexisNexis and tried myself to find something that could be used. I simply saw nothing in the article and nothing in LN. I know there are mentions but just not to the depth that could sustain notability. I'm sure you know that the article can be recreated at any time when sources are found. I'll be happy to do the undelete myself if you will let me know. As for the nominator - I don't know him. If he's paid it will be shown in time. Thanks again for your comments and your attitude. It's always nice to find people that can disagree agreeably. FYI, I will be in the jungles (literally) from Monday until about March 4 and will not have access. After that, let me know if I can ever assist you. JodyB _talk 16:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your quick responses, and especially for your offer of aid. I intend to take you up on the offer. I have some special interests, but am still looking for broader work in Wikipedia. Enjoy your trip—I've spent time in a few jungles. Be careful—and keep in mind that there are equivalents of poison ivy that won't look anything like what we have in the southern United States. I swear by calamine lotion. — Neonorange (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Fish River (Alabama) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

One of your comments at ANI

Reading through my watchlist I noticed that one of your comments was lost through an edit conflict [1]. I have no involvement in the issue, just wanted to let you know. JBH (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Lee Min-ji

I don't know why you delete the above.

So, my question is, should I create one for Kim Heung-soo?

I have created Kim Heung-soo (actor) because there is another sportsman with the same name. So what now?

Thanks.--Jjaey (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Lee Min-Ji page was a disambiguation page which was unnecessary. It was unnecessary because there is only one article with that name. If you wish to prepare an article on Lee Min-ji you may. Just do not make it a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are only used when the same name or word could point to more than one article. As to the Kim Heung-soo (actor) page I see there is already a page for her, which you created. There is no such article for anyone else so a disambiguation page is not needed. Thank you for your question. JodyB _talk 11:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your review on Joejo but firstly i think the page is good togo as it is linked to some other website referencing him. Secondly on the article 9janimi Channel i created, i see no reason why some frustrated people should be nominating my contents that i took time to prepare for speedy deletion, i search wikipedia everyday and i see some small articles that are not up-to-the contents of the 9janimi Channel... so i think should give it a look too and consider it. Thanks Joe! Soltesh (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 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: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare 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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel's trolling

I am not sure why Cwobeel is so blatantly trolling again - I left the latter trolling statement about "the royal we", but I removed the other because this is not helping the article's improvement and my patience for this user has gone to near zero after their previous BLP violations and disruptive behavior led me to AE. Cwobeel got sanctioned and Cwobeel still - to this day - does not understand WP:BLP at all - including WP:BLPSELFPUB which applies to Langone's own statements. He tried removing 2 of the 4 Langone sources (out of dozens which exist) in this edit. Now he is going and removing Langone's presentation of ideas and twisting words and actions to establish a clear POV.[2] It is irritating and I think Cwobeel is playing dumb - because the repeated blank and redirecting right after AFD is not "error" its disruptive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel is passionate on this topic but is not automatically bad. When the sources were removed, you reverted and no further attempt was made. The process here is best described as be bold, revert and then discuss. It's a little clunky sometimes, but it works in the long run. If you sense POV issues then discuss them on the talk page but focus on the edits and not the editor. One other thing, I will be leaving the country for the South American rainforests and savannahs early Monday morning. I will not have reliable access to the internet until March 5 or 6. Therefore, you will need to speak with someone else if acute concerns arise. Keep working, keep your cool and all will work out nicely. Thanks! JodyB _talk 23:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have access to the specific library where much of the material written by Langone is being held, but I see numerous citations and such. I'll be watching, but I don't think I can devote several hours to fixing Langone's page - I'm just not that familiar with his work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: if you are not familiar, then let go and let others that do. You also need to go easy on your accusations, and look in the mirror. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm... "look in the mirror"... what an appropriate response for someone who has been accused of using "the royal we" following the decision to keep an article after AFD and my personal reversion your blank and redirects following it. No matter that it comes on the heels of some 90+ citations in international publications. I do not share your concept of "non-notability" because it is clear that despite my inability to access Gale Research (for birthdate and education) you are not content with Langone's own biographical details from himself for such things and you removed 2 of 4 major publications out of the dozens he's written. There was absolutely no reason to do that other than reduce information in support of "merging". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please guys, I am sitting at the gate in Miami about to head to South America for some time in the rain forests and savannah. I will not have internet and cannot contribute effectively to this discussion. Please take the discussion to the talk page. JodyB _talk 17:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy your trip and godspeed.- Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for taking care of the vandal. BTW, I see you're from Baldwin County. During my time in Pensacola, I visited Foley many, many times to shop and eat at Lambert's. I miss those throwed rolls. Cheers. APK whisper in my ear 14:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You might not recognize it as it keeps growing. Lamberts is solidly booked every afternoon. I actually live Daphne but my sons love to go there for birthdays and such. If you ever make it back let me know, we can have coffee. JodyB _talk 14:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the actioning on the impersonation incident I reported. I'm now wondering if there is any way to find out whether the reported account is a sock puppet of another editor? Tvx1 02:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• You could ask for an investigation, but you need to some level of suspicion to do so. Assuming there is no further trouble, I'd let it go. JodyB _talk 12:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I saw the thread of editors, I realize you were following protocol and the comments I'm referring to were earlier. At least the corrections are on record here. Thanks for your help and suggestion. If / when the climate becomes more of an issue, someone else will probably do these or similar articles and do them properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Energizerbetty (talk • contribs) 05:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Titoists

I have already alerted user:Salvio Giuliano for talk:Josip Broz Tito#Dispute: why titoists remove tag of POV and did remove section -Criticism- which was a result of report in ANI? In introduction I removed false sources inserted by titoist gang but in article titoist rubbish remains! What to do against titoist vandals? Several logged users and IPs criticized tioist POV of whole article!RegardsPassando (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It is incomprhension; again and again my question: is this post personal attack? Am I loony? Am I calling names and assaulting editors? RegardsPassando (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Jamessaveryofficial/sandbox

Hi, With regards to your decline of the U5 speedy request for User:Jamessaveryofficial/sandbox, your decline comment asked if you had missed anything. This sandbox is being used to host a fake X factor article, probably somebody's fantasy version. It purports to be the fourth season of the American X-Factor but that series only had 3 seasons before being shut down. Also note that one of the judges listed in the infobox is the user himself. Please reconsider. Regards -- Whpq (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Got it. I did reconsider and deleted the article. Thanks. JodyB _talk 10:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - Whpq (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

GoGoDragons -- advice requested

Sigh...the creator made a minor improvement and and moved the article back to mainspace without submitting it to AfC. The article as it stands is still A7-bait, but retagging it as such seems just a little WP:BITEy at this point, I really don't want to prolong the back-and-forth by moving it back to draftspace, a prod will likely get reverted, and sending it to the fiery pit of AfD feels like overkill. Your thoughts on the best course? Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 22:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Finngall, I agree. He's got to find some reasonable claim of notability. I'd love to help but I am heading out to the hospital tomorrow for open heart surgery and an aortic valve replacement. I'll be out of service for a week or so. I'm glad you are trying to help him. Just shoot straight and give him an assignment to find notability. JodyB _talk 01:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tag

I have cause of complaint pertinent disputed article Josip Broz Tito because user:Tuvixer always removes POV's tag, like a sentinel who shoots on sight, during discussion regarding POV in related talk, against project's rule: is there anything you can do for this violation? RespectsPassando (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What violation? The guy never goes on the talk page. He ignores any discussion. He never mentiones why he makes the changes to the article, and now he did the same thing with POV tag. That is not how Wikipedia works. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Never on the talk page? I proposed a neutral introduction: but do you know what talk about or else?Passando (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sry, but your English is not so good. I don't understand what you want to say. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

don't worry my English neither your: this project has rules and you can not eliminate tag during a disputePassando (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 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 reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas 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) 06:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 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 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania 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) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 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 Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of 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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 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 sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing 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) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 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 reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during 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) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance 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) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 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: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria 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) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 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: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army 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) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 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: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of 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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

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: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription 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) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

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: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 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) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

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: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 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) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Akash Dahariya (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Hello sir..I want to create a wikipedia page of Dinesh Soi which page you have been deleted previously.He is a very popular casting director and producer and also work in many films in Bollywood industry.Here I give you the reference link.pls check and read theses link for wikipedia authentication :-

1.http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/sunshine-rise-productions-ropes-real-eunuchs-colors-code-red-awaaz-150216 2.http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/behind-the-lens/six-years-i-have-been-part-of-600-projects-dinesh-soi-casting-director-583 3.http://tvtalks.in/Serials/Default.aspx?ID=34 4.http://www.bollywoodhelpline.com/news-gossips/telly-buzz/colors-code-red-ropes-in-real-eunuchs-for-an-episode/21500 5.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4707940/combined

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

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: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising 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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)