User talk:JodyB/Archive 14

Battle of Germantown

I thank you for you quick reply on the Battle of Germantown.He has not listed a reference despite the fact I have asked him many times. This is not the only page he has reverted my edits(Along with references). What can I do to prevent this in the future? (Red4tribe (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

What you cannot do is edit war. There are other dispute resolution venues. You might try WP:MEDCAB pr WP:RFC. Now, on the talk page someone seems to suggest that his reference was sourced at some time. I haven't looked all the way back to see. Without a source there seems to be a POV issue with using the term "decisive." -JodyB _talk 01:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tripjohnson is still reverting my changes on the Battle of Germantown without making any reference of his own despite the fact you have asked him too. Even someone else asked him to list a reference. He needs to stop.(Red4tribe (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Someone else has blocked him briefly. I left a warning at his talk page and reverted the article. I am leaving a note on the article talk page too. --JodyB _talk 23:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Allright, thanks. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Deletion of Albury Junior Badminton Club

Hi JodyB, I think you just deleted my article on Albury Junior Badminton Club. I would be very grateful if you can help me understand the reasons it was deleted and also how I can improve it so that it won't be deleted after some re-work.

The main reason for putting it up is because the club received comments from many schools, local government authorities and the wider stakeholders in Surrey (England) that they would like to see information about the club online. The club and the coaches within the club itself work very closely with the national governing bodies (BADMINTON England being the major one) to develop it into an academy of sporting excellence, it has links with many schools and many would regard the club as posing significant interests, especially in the badminton as well as sports development community.

I also do not understand how other article on smaller badminton clubs are staying up.

I am very committed to improving my original article and I would be very grateful if you can give me some advice.

Many thanks

Joe Jkl21 (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I'll be glad to help. I appreciate that many people in the area wanted something online. Certainly Wikipedia is the premiere online location as it is consistently in the top 10 websites of the world. But unfortunately, not every group or organization is notable enough for inclusion. I'd suggest you read the guidelines on notability as that should answer many of your questions. The article, although nicely written, just didn't make any assertion that it was notable outside of the immediate area, therefore it was deleted.

In order to establish notability you will need to find a couple of reliable, third party sources (see WP:RS) that speak of the club in a non-trivial way. When you find these you can let me know and I will move the article back into your userspace and you can add those references into the article. When done, I will move the article back into the mainspace where it should be fine.

I know there are probably other articles about other clubs that are similar. If unsourced, they shouldn't be there either. Their existence is not however reason for yours to remain. Sooner or later they will also be deleted. The reason I deleted yours was because someone else noticed it and marked it as a candidate for speedy deletion.

I appreciate your efforts and your work and will be more than happy to answer any other questions you may have or to assist you in rehabilitating the article. --JodyB _talk 15:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning

This is getting ridiculous. What is the point in sourcing a result? It would require every battle to be sourced, and Red was the one who began reverting it and arguing with me. But does he get a warning? Nope, didn't think so. So go ahead, block me if you wish, because I'm sick of my contributions being reverted and destroyed. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

What's the point in sourcing? Read WP:V and WP:RS. The phrase "decisive victory" is a judgment call that you cannot make. Find a source.--JodyB _talk 17:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Trip is blatantly lying to you there. It was originally a British Victory then he changed it. Look back at this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Germantown&diff=173373849&oldid=171498522

and look at this, he changed it agian later

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Germantown&diff=205389551&oldid=205387508

(Red4tribe (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Fair enough, I see that everyone is biased toward the true idiots on youtube and also highly pompous, so I'll agree to keep it on British victory, but that doesn't stop certain people from changing battles strangely to victories for the side that clearly lost. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

TripJohnson is now changing the stregth of the units, same battle still, while leaving the same reference in place. It clearly says on the reference 11,000 Americans, but he keep changing it to 11,900. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

So source your number. Until you do discuss it. -JodyB _talk 11:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Red is blatantly lying to you there, I altered the number to 11,700, which to my knowledge it was listed as that number before. And, Red did the same thing on other battles such as Harlem Heights I believe, changing the information with the same reference in place. (Trip Johnson (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Ah screw it, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a low life troll who claims to be a graceful wikipedian (not you Jody). (Trip Johnson (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Arguing is rarely productive anyway. Sometimes it's best for our own peace and wellbeing to avoid some people. You have much to offer and I look forward to your work. JodyB _talk 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Article deletion

Hi JodyB,

A while ago I put up the article Eppo Doeve for speedy deletion. I thought it met the only criteria needed for G7 ("the page's only substantial content was added by its author"), criteria which allows for other authors and does not say notability comes into play. Could you point me to where Wikipedia's guidelines show that an article can meet all of the qualifications needed for deletion, be requested for deletion, and still be kept? Gnomestar (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Centre for Ultrahigh Bandwidth Devices for Optical Systems

I added some references to Centre for Ultrahigh Bandwidth Devices for Optical Systems. Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Ultrahigh Bandwidth Devices for Optical Systems. --Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by anon users

Just thought I'd let you know that there are anonymous users using their IP's vandalising the page Battle of Hubbardton, deleting my source as a British / German victory and citing it as an American tactical victory. (Trip Johnson (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Some anon user is now at the same thing on the Battle of White Plains. Just thought it best to let you know before I usually get the warning for vandalism. (Trip Johnson (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

I have been out of pocket this weekend but at the moment both seem to be ok with you as the last editor. Is the White Plains article sourced? I know Hubbardton is. I may have missed something. -JodyB _talk 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, they are both sourced. (Trip Johnson (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

And now, Red4Tribe (surprisingly) is at the same thing on the Battle of Hubbardton's page. He made a ridiculous claim that he "could not see my sources" when they were clearly defined, and somehow brought up the conclusion that "both my sources are unreliable" without any effort to discuss it. You could consider this my reporting him if you wish, because I'm getting sick of him. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

He did not add "reflist". Thus I could not see them. Both of his are unreliabel, not only said by me but others as well. I added references of my own. (Red4tribe (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

What that really means is sources that agree with his opinion are reliable, while those that disagree are unreliable. (Trip Johnson (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

You are very unreasonable Trip. Do not remove my dispute tag, it is disputed, not only by me but by a few others too. (Red4tribe (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

(outdent) Please notice at the top of the page that I am busy in real life. I am re-evaluating certain commitments and am focusing on core responsibilities. Please go to WP:MEDCAB and seek assistance there for ongoing mediation or assistance. I wish the best to you all. You are working on a part of the Wikipedia that is really important and deserves proper sourcing. Just don't let your passion overcome your better judgments. -JodyB _talk 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi JodyB; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)