User talk:JodyB/Archive 19

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello JodyB! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sidney M. Willhelm -

Your assistance please
The record shows you deleted an article on Abdul Majid Khan. The entry you put in the deletion log says: "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup; admin failed to delete after AFD discussion was closed as delete."

I clicked the "what links here" button -- but I couldn't find the afd you referred to. I'd be interested in reading it, if you know where to find it.

I was going to start an article on an individual named Abdul Majid Khan -- based on some new references.

Would you mind checking to see if the deleted article was about an alleged Taliban leader held captive in the BTIF?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Geo, JodyB hasn't edited in about 6 months. I'm not active either, just popping through my watchlist, thought I could help.  The article deleted doesn't mention Taliban, but does seem to be about the same person you are referencing.  The deleted article details a Pakistani born in 1940 that is now deceased.  It is eulogistic/COI ridden/cruft/memorialization/unsourced and correctly deleted, IMHO. It was deleted after this afd (there was a page move in the middle, causing some confusion and why you presumably weren't able to locate it).  Admin Cirt deleted the redirect you redlinked above and actually closed the AFD, not JodyB, but doesn't otherwise look involved in the deletion debate.  Again, I'm not active, so will likely not notice any reply you make here regarding questions.  Seek another admin or Cirt to discuss userfying/undeletion, or of course bring your sources and rationale to Deletion Review.  Regards,  Keeper  |  76  21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keeper for the reply. I am in and out now but try to drop by every now and again. I think your reply sums it up well. JodyBtalk 15:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sidney M. Willhelm


The article Sidney M. Willhelm has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines. I created this for someone but it has not developed.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JodyBtalk 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding Sources to images
I am in the process of adding the sources to the logos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spice_Digital_Logo.png I hope this type of source will do --JovianEye (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Cloak
I am JodyB on freenode and I'm requesting a cloak" JodyBtalk 17:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

General of the Armies
The protection log state that you were the admin who locked down this article due to a content dispute; since I did no want to leave you out of this I have decide to inform you that I have exercised admin power and made two changes to the article.

The first was to shorten the time limit from indefinite to 1 month o grounds that WP:PP does not encourage pages to the fully protected for long periods of time during these content disputes. I have observed an open RFC that should end in 30 days, it is my hope that if the RFC closes in 30 days as the template says it should the editors will be able to implement the changes discussed there without the need for admins to unprotect.

Secondly, after weigh the option, I decided to revert to a version of the page before the content dispute started on grounds that if neither editors preferred version of the article is protected in the name space both will be more open to discussion.

If you disapprove of either of these two actions then do feel free to leave me a message and we can discussion the page or look for a third opinion. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jamal hadjkura
The other day you declined my suggested speedy deletion request for Jamal hadjkura. The only cast listing I've been able to find indicates that Mr. Hadjkura isn't a regular on the show (which is still in production):

According to SD guidelines: "The [speedy deletion] criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible." Mephistophelian (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I declined the speedy because the person may prove notable through other means. You were quick to add the speedy tag thirty minutes after the page was created. I felt then, and now, that a prod was far superior to pulling the trigger quickly on an article that could still be in creation. My goal is to add articles if there is a reasonable chance that they might be expanded. JodyBtalk 23:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Necrosporus
I'm really not comfortable with an unblock at this point. Besides the sheer mess the AfD became, we have a whole article that has been compromised by meatpuppetry, as well as the fact that the AfD is being canvassed via email. Blueboy96 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re
I did my best to clearly explain that the seperate article is a painfully obvious violation of WP:CFORK. We have a seperate former country article on a period of three years during which the state had a different name. The changes that took place at that time were perceived as a victory by certain factions within Serbia and Montenegro, and the article was being pushed for the sake of political POV. It does not get more obvious.

To add to this, all "supporting" articles (flag, coa, president, politics, etc.) have already been merged by others or were never even seperated in the first place. And now the idea is to create not one POV FORK, but maybe six or seven.

The bottom line is, how does one enforce policy in the face of political POV or "national pride"? What would be the point of an RfC when the violation is obvious and parties refuse on principle to take this into consideration. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A good example of what I'm talking about and the kind of politics involved here is this. User:Иван Богданов, whom I've noticed you also notified, has been indef blocked for posting an attack on a political oponent in Serbian (the translation of which can be found in the link). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have posted a reply to your talk page. Thanks. JodyBtalk 11:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You warned User:DIREKTOR and User:Иван Богданов on 2 March about Arbcom sanctions. DIREKTOR had made only two reverts on Serbia and Montenegro which were in keeping with preserving a long standing situation where major changes had been made without gathering consensus. User:Иван Богданов had even been maliciously socking as User:DIREKTOR SPLIT. You then add DIREKTOR to Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. Did you even look at any of the background? Your warning is extremely rude and misplaced and I would strongly suggest retracting it. Polargeo (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did review the background. I issued the warning in a hopes of preventing further problems. It is only a warning reminding him and others of the importance of collabortaive editing. I have no intention of withdrawing the warning. Thank you. JodyBtalk 12:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So the next time DIREKTOR reverts a POV pushing IP or new editor on that article you will no doubt be prepared to block him for it per sanctions. I will keep a watch on this situation. Polargeo (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the very nature of making your report and in warning DIREKTOR for reverting someone who was an indef blocked malicious socker after that user had already been indef blocked smells of vindictiveness to me. In my view you are no longer a neutral admin on this matter. Polargeo (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to my previous comments your warning to DIREKTOR suggests a slow edit war on Serbia and Montenegro. I have looked back through the last few months of DIREKTOR's contributions to that article and the idea that DIREKTOR is somehow slow edit warring is pushing the bounds of reality in the extreme. The only actions of DIREKTOR that could be construed as warring on that article were the two reverts of User:Иван Богданов and DIREKTOR reported that user for maliciously socking against him within the same hour he made those reverts. Your logging on Requests for arbitration/Macedonia some time after these events was misguided and I again politely request that you withdraw it. Polargeo (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you fully study this situation. Since January, DIREKTOR has repeatedly reverted and restored a redirect from Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Serbia and Montenegro. I count 7 reverts and redirects without clear consensus spread over about two months. 5 reverts occurred in the last 2 weeks. After some attempted to open an RFC DIREKTOR wasn't interested. . I only issued a warning and again I stand by that warning and will not retract it. JodyBtalk 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will outline the last 5 of those reverts which occured in the last two weeks. Four of those reverts have been aginst User:Иван Богданов and one was when he got reverted for doing this (plus reverting additions by a possible IP sock). To give DIREKTOR a warning a while after this had occured and the situation with User:Иван Богданов had fully been realized is wrong. The issue of the POV pushing and forking that DIREKTOR is trying to avoid is a sideline, I actually think what DIREKTOR is doing is right but this isn't the place to go into that. Polargeo (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Further to this that batch of reverts came at the time or after the malicious socking report DIREKTOR had filed against User:Иван Богданов, which was successful. So discounting this batch of reverts your post-event warning where you equally admonish DIREKTOR and Иван Богданов seems to me to apply to only 2 reverts which occured more than 2 weeks before you gave the warning. You also say DIREKTOR wasn't interested in an RfC as a criticism of DIREKTOR but in the link you give I see DIREKTOR going to great lengths to explain why he isn't interested in an RfC with no other user coming back in and making any good case for the RfC. I just feel that this is a case of a warning of sanctions being unnecessarily applied to one of the few users who understands the Balkans area of wikipedia and is trying against huge pressure from socks and IPs on all sides to keep excessive nationalism out of the equation. I will leave it at that as I understand my reaction to have been confrontational so I am sorry for this minor drama. Polargeo (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Prolargeo, I do not consider this to be a drama. You feel strongly about this and you are expressing your views in an appropriate venue and, I think, in an appropriate manner. Clearly we do not agree but I am not offended by your comments. Please keep in mind that this was a preventative warning only. It was designed to prevent a future problem - to slow things down before something happened. Please also bear in mind that while one was blocked for socking there were other reverts of other users too and there were changes and reverts at other articles related to FRY and S&M. Waiting a bit longer after posting the merge suggestion or accepting the RFC or some other dispute resolution tactic could not have hurt. DIREKTOR is a dedicated editor from what I can see and I do not want him getting into trouble if it can be prevented. Articles related to the Balkans have been singled out as a troublesome area. I just want to keep it from flaring up. I appreciate your thoughts but I think we just need to agree to disagree here. Thank you. JodyBtalk 12:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (Apologies, recently I only have free time to edit at about this hour each day so I was not able to respond any sooner. I'm technically on a WikiBreak of sorts.)
 * The bottom line is that a number of other users and myself really are engaged in monitoring (and expanding) an exceptionally difficult "area" of Wikipedia. I myself even more so than others perhaps, often engage in trying to at least maintain the quality of highly difficult and controversial articles, most of which are obscure. I often find it difficult to work alone against a group of users bent on promoting national POVs contrary to sources. WP:DR does not work, or works rarely and the matter is handled superficially. There is simply no interest in these obscure articles on the part of respected users.


 * At the risk of boring you further with this nonsense, I'll give an example: the Yugoslav Axis collaborationism template. There I found myself completely unable to enter information (sourced by no less than five university publications) in the face of a couple of Serbian users who are opposed to the information on principle. User:FpkCascais merely informed me that he has decided to proclaim one of those sources "biased" (published by Stanford) because it was written by a Stanford University professor of history, who appears to be of Croatian ethnicity, and the user seems to have a problem with Croats.
 * The user will simply edit-war to remove the info, nobody will respond to an RfC, and I'll end-up getting blocked because I opposed it too many times. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't that user a sock? In any case, please ask for help on these matters first. If you are not getting a response let me know. I'll visit the template talk page and take a look. As I said above, I think you are dedicated and passionate. Those are strengths but can also be troublesome. Just use caution and all will be fine. JodyBtalk 12:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if he's a sock, but he certainly is disruptive in that his methods amount to "edit-war and you'll get blocked too". I think the fellow got the wrong impression from his recent exploits on the Draža Mihailović article. He actually altered the text of quotations of historical documents because he felt they "must be clarified" (presenting no further excuse for this edit upon inquiry). He then decided he does not talk to me and simply edit-warred until both of us got blocked for 3RR and the article was full-protected with his version on top (naturally I was blocked for the longer period :). He now seems to find this modus operandi preferrable, as he has moved on to edit the template and the Chetniks article in the same way. That's about it.
 * Don't think I don't realize my temper is a problem. I think its the annoyance of having to deal with the fifteenth or so user promoting the same POV in the same way. User:FpkCascais, for example, has to be the fifth or sixth user I've had to say the same things to just to try and keep the exact same sourced info from being butchered (in the same way). It wears you down, I guess. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was in error about him being a sock - had him confused with another user. As you know this is a broad area with tendrils extending into numerous articles. I am trying to better familiarize myself with more of the articles. JodyBtalk 12:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not query your actions to date any further on this. Regarding your last comment to me I am aware of the Balkans article problems. I can probably be considered as a moderately active user and even contributor in this area. I have reported three established users with nationalist agendas now (2 Croat and 1 Serb nationalist) and all three have been indef blocked as a direct result of my reports. I have also given Balkans sanctions warnings to a few users myself, although I have never specifically logged any of these warnings and I generally dislike the idea of specific sanctions as unconstructive. Based on experience in both the Balkans and climate change area of wikipedia I find that sanctions make little difference to serious abusers and disproportionately penalise constructive contributors. Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And now what? His unblock request is rejected on bureaucratic grounds, on the pretext that it should be discussed on WP:AN, and it's really not discussed: The WP:AN thread is dead by now (why wasn't it opened on ANI, by the way?), and no one bothered to really respond to Polargeo's, Spellcast's and mine concerns about the block. I would understand if you blocked Direktor around February 17, when the edit war was in progress, but this latest block of yours smells like punishment, and creates a chilling effect overall: now no one knows what he might do, because the block may fall off the blue sky. I want to record my strong disagreement about this block and your overall approach to this matter. No such user (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I placed it at AN because it seemed the best place for such a discussion although there was no requirement to do so. There is no punishment here. I understand that we disagree about this block but such charges are unnecessary. JodyBtalk 12:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No such user is spot on. The timing and the unnecessary nature of this block is everything. This appears to be a block that is more about teaching a user a lesson rather than a necessary block to stop someone doing something and that is not what blocks are for. By the time I had even realized you had taken it to AN (I had no notice from you even though I was actively contesting your warning here) a few uninvolved users had a few minutes to look at your side of the argument and back you up. This is completely wrong and very poor practice. Polargeo (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concerns. Please note there is no need for me to notify you about this block. A block message was recorded on DIREKTOR's page, a note was logged at WP:ARBMAC and I posted a discussion at WP:AN. JodyBtalk 12:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very aware of the rules and who you are expected to notify and that is exactly the problem. I think you have played those rules like a game of chess rather than for either the spirit or benefit of wikipeida. You prempted opposition by taking this to AN yourself with your own slant on the proceedings and the minimal notification. The one outcome I hope from this is that you will not play these games in the future. I just hope that our dealings with each other will be more amicable in the future because we both have the interests of improving wikipedia at heart but then so does DIREKTOR. Polargeo (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite block on an IP
Just to let you know that we normally don't indefinitely block IPs as they can get reassigned. I would recommend lowering that block to, say, 1 month or something like that. I would consider revoking the IPs ability to edit the talk page due to the legal threat. Thank you, –MuZemike 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea. I left the talk page open so he could retract. Thanks JodyBtalk 00:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jose Aranda deletion.
Hi, I'm YankeesGrey, the starter of Jose Aranda article. Please, I request you to restore the article and offer me suggestions about how to improve the article and prove his notability. I know Jose Aranda qualify the notability requirements. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeesGrey (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I have restored the article and moved into your user space so that you can work on it. The link is User:YankeesGrey/Jose Aranda. Make your improvements there and when it is ready I will move it back into the main space for you. It will not generally be visible until it is moved back but this way you have time to do your work.


 * Now, I would suggest you read this article, WP:RS, which will help you understand the kinds of sources we need to verify that the person is notable. Things like blogs and youtube are usually not considered reliable sources. Look for newspapers or magazines or that have reported on Aranda or even major web sites. Aranda may be a great musician but we need something reliable that verifies it. If you have any questions at all, please let me know. JodyBtalk 13:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi JodyB. As you suggested, I read the article. I've worked on it, giving sources and reliable things. (Like some links to national TV channels (This one for example), radio stations and and magazines where he appeared. Regarding to the magazines, he appeared in the paper version, but maybe not in the electronic one). Not everything that appears in TV, radio or magazines keep staying in internet, but after reading the article, I think all will be more than enough to prove the notability, so I would appreciatte that you restore his article when possible. Thank you.--YankeesGrey (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am heading out the door right now but will check later tonight. Thanks! JodyBtalk 22:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked and I think you have made some improvement but you are still not quite there yet. Once moved back into the main space I am pretty sure it will be nominated for deletion. The sourcing just isn't reliable. We are looking for mainstream material about him - not him talking about something else. The fact that he is writing a paper on some group just isn't very relevant. But keep working. I am sure you will find what you need. JodyBtalk 16:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Knee-jerk reaction
Could you try to make your edits look a bit less like knee-jerk reflexes than this, and instead pay attention to the context? The guy created an article that was deleted as original research and userfied. Then he deleted material from the userfied page. Anyone looking at the context in which this happened would not have had such concerns as those expressed in the boilerplate notice that you put there in that edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I obviously made a mistake. But I must say I am honored to have my talk page visited by such a courteous error free editor. I would happily correct whatever mistake was there but I think it has already been taken care of. I will apologize to the user. In the future please show a touch of civility - it really doesn't take much. JodyBtalk 18:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do think that bots doing this sort of thing should be supervised by an attentive human rather than just allowed to go ahead unsupervised. Am I wrong to say that, or wrong to think that's what happened in this case? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A bot? There was no bot. I guess we both made a mistake.JodyBtalk 11:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, JodyB, for blocking one week user:DIREKTOR. He was bragging too much and getting rid of punishments too easily. His group quickly attacked you, as you have seen in Admin/noticeboard. I am glad to see that Wikipedia has honest administrators. L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.236.74.14 (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware they had much to say but the issue here is not that - it is about working effectively within the guidelines set by the community. As far as I am concerned that is history and all are moving on. JodyBtalk 21:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cold War
Please could you revisit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cold War, and if possible, note/correct/expand upon my attempts at assisting, User talk:Waterfox1.  Chzz  ►  19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. That sounded awfully bombastic; sorry. Must preview more. I reckon you'll know what I meant, though; shout me if I can help, etc. Looks like excellent potential, those articles, which is why I took the helpme 'more seriously'.  Chzz  ►  20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation
I was looking through the coaches at Admin_coaching/Status and saw that there are a lot under "reconfirmation".

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list and placed on the "retired" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches and moved to the retired list.

Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems concerning user:direktor
Hello JodyB. Sorry to bother you, but I must complain about a situation with this user. I think you´ll remember that you intervened after a breaking of the 3 times revert on the article Draža Mihailović that resulted in a block for both of us (me and direktor). Well, he just insisted in the same kind of edits, skipping completely the talk page where I lost some ammount of time so a consensus is reached. This way, an edit war (or a sort of...) is inevitable... What I conclude is, that he also doesn´t really desire any kind of consensus, so what I really did was loosing time on the talk page, and that just doesn´t look like a "good wikipedian" attitude from direktor. Hoping to get an advice from you, I send you regards, and apologise to bother you with this. FkpCascais (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look at the page you mentioned. I do not think this is an edit war. User:DIREKTOR did make a couple of changes and you have largely reverted him. That is an acceptable use of the bold, revert, delete system we use here. It is at this point that it goes to the talk page for discussion. He is not required to have prior consensus to every edit. But now that you have challenged him you must go to the talk page and begin discussion. I would also advise a note on his talk page referencing the revert and the new discussion. If I have missed anything please post specific diffs for consideration. Thanks! JodyBtalk 11:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm User:FkpCascais cleverly addresses JodyB thinking that he can win the argument by finding an admin to block me. Ironic, since he had just recently gotten himself blocked, not for edit-warring, but for disruptive editing (such as the removal of sources) and personal attacks. Jody, I feel I simply have to clarify this: the man is lying to you. After I made some minor edits on the Draža Mihailović article, he arrived and started editing wholesale  (removing very well sourced info, altering quoted historical documents, ethnically discriminating against authors who's ethnicity he did not approve of, etc.). All this in spite of being asked numerous times not to edit-war to keep his controversial new edits in, but to discuss on the talkpage thread I had opened . In spite of the discussion, he edit-warred until the article got protected with his new edits inserted and the sourced text altered or removed. This time, instead of edit-warring, I felt I should simply report his edits since they were becoming obviously disruptive (for example). Not to mention that he stated I am "shitting out my words", and that I should go "kick the rocks in my village", that I am mentally ill, etc. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the talkpage is the proper place and I have so reminded him. I would also agree that there is no room for unprofessional incivility. I will look deeper into this later today but for now I think you are taking a sound approach. Thanks. JodyBtalk 16:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Hello JodyB. I'm Barkjon. I just signed up for the Admin Coaching program, and I was wondering if you could coach me. Please reply on my talkpage with your answer or any comments.-- B a r k j o n 17:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested mainly in vandalism reverting. But I also would like to participate in RfA and AfD more often. I already know how to do administrator tasks, as I am one on several Wikias.-- B a r k j o n   complaints here! 15:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suspect then that you are well aware of the methods and procedures used here. My biggest suggestion would be to ensure your familiarity with the English policies. vandalism reverting is pretty straightforward. I would keep an eye on the administrators incident page as many vandalism related issues arise there. RFA doesn't require too much admin involvement as the decisions there are made by bureaucrats. For AfD read the archives page and become acquainted with the reasoning used by admins when closing discussions. Given your experience I think the best for you is to look for the differences in the way things are done here. As always, keep me posted. JodyBtalk 13:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)
You have recently participated in discussion at an AFD for a broadcast station. I have recently posted the above topic on the talk page of the notability guideline for organizations and companies, to see if there is interest in adding language related to the notability of radio and TV broadcast stations to that guideline. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)