User talk:JodyB/Archive 7

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

Could you explain, for my benefit, your use of CSD to close the Patrick Clark AfD discussion. From what I can see, Rozrozroz is not nor ever has been blocked or banned (perhaps I overlooked something) and a hoax is specifically not eligible for a speedy. Maybe I have missed some discussion but I just wonder. Thanks. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 12:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider a deliberately-added hoax to be vandalism and as such subject to speedy deletion. I used the wrong deletion summary though. I realise it may not be strictly within policy and process, but there's no need to send an article through a process when the end result is already obvious. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just curious and truthfully, I agree. I didn't speedy it out of hand though because hoaxes a are specifically mentioned as not being a reason to speedy. Doesn't make sense to me but I agree with you. I am wondering about him being banned? A user made that claim but I could find no record other than a suspicion that he runs socks. Did I miss something obvious -- that concerns me that I might I have overlooked a block/ban somewhere. Thanks again. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I read the discussion too fast and came to the conclusion, which doesn't now seem correct, that he is banned. There is no evidence to suggest that although it may be coming down the horizon.

Hoaxes in general aren't speediable because it is preferred to give the community the five days of a prod or AFD to find sources. As mentioned though an obvious hoax which was deliberately added doesn't really need all that. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Just in case you aren't monitoring the Korean Demilitarized Zone, the Korean Wall article has already been merged verbatim into it by another user. It 'should' be safe to delete the Korean Wall article now. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It is deleted.

Resolved

User: Abi's magic is a sockpuppet of a rather disruptive (and disturbing) individual, User:Ln of x, please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ln of x, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ln of x, and [1], [2], [3], ad infinitum, lol. This particular editor has a fixation on the fictional character Abi Branning and the actress who plays her, Lorna Fitzgerald. If you need further confirmation, feel free to speak with User:FisherQueen, User:Isotope23, or User:Philippe, all of whom have been dealing with this editor for many months. If you could please bump the block to indef, I've tagged the page with the sock tag to add to the growing category. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 16:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ariel - it is done.

Thanks for the quick response! Ariel♥Gold 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL I wish there was an easy way to know them! Wouldn't that rock? Sadly, there isn't one that I know of, just that some issues like this one, are monitored by a number of editors and admins, and I've been aware of this particular sock for a while, via watching Queen's talk page, and reverting the edits made to the articles this particular sockpuppet focuses on. For this particular sock, the best response is no response, just an indef block/tag. (DFTT is particularly relevant in this particular case) Ariel♥Gold 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RfA, it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. As always, if you ever see me doing anything which would cause you to regret giving me your support, let me know. henrik•talk 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind, then, if I resubmitted it under G11? The user that created the article (User:Gold calling) was blocked earlier today for a promotional username and using Wikipedia to advertise for "Gold Calling". I really think the article should be speedied, but if you think otherwise, I'll be happy to PROD it. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I speedied it as requested. Thanks for letting me know.JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it you declined the speedy? The article's already been prod'ed once (by NawlinWiki), but the template was removed by the main contributor within half a day or so, so we shouldn't be prod'ing it again. I'll take it to AfD later, unless you beat me to it. =) --Dynaflow babble 22:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just want to point out that this page that you deleted wasn't technically nonsense, as you stated. Nonsense, by Wikipedias definition, is "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content". It goes on to say that poor writing should not be included in this. Now, you also deleted the AfD discussion for it. Why? I would have supported a deletion of this page, but I think you jumped the gun on this one. - Rjd0060 23:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are free to recreate or undelete or have someone do it. I will not oppose. The Afd was not an AfD at all but just a copy of the one sentence transcluded on the AfD page. At the time I saw it, and as I recall, there was a speedy tag on the article along with the AfD notice. If not nonsense then no assertion of the importance of a bacon melt sandwich. Thanks JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember, remember, the fifth of November? Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007. It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, JodyB. I just created a page for Porno para Ricardo. I saw you deleted it. I think that there should be an article for it; let's talk to discuss this. Please leave a reply here or in my talk page, or write me at [email protected]. Alfredo (sorry for being unauthenticated right now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I have reviewed the article and cannot find any assertion that the band is notable. As I am sure you know, there are many, many bands all of whom want to be important or famous. However, this one does not seem to be. Please see WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Now, if you think the band is notable, tell me why and I can un-delete the article in your userspace and give you the time to make the proper corrections. But the article must make some claim to notability. If you assert notability and do not verify the assertion through the use of reliable, third party sources the article will be deleted via AfD. I'll be waiting to hear from you. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right; after reading the criteria for notability, I realize that, according to it, the relevance of the band is rather weak; if any. There are facts that might make them meet the criteria. But, anyway, they need to be included within the article somehow to legitimate it.

Actually, though the band meets the criteria for notability only weakly, if at all; I think they should have an article, for some reasons a little hard to explain, mainly concerning the domain of Cuban rock. For example, being a known and controversial band in Cuba; their criticism of the Cuban government; that kind of things.

However, I agree, the content of my stub is not enough to make this article stand. I will try to organize a more sound stub; and to formalize and write down the reasons why I think the article should stand, if it doesn't yet meet the criteria. Then, if you're willing to give me a hand, I will contact you and ask your opinion. Un saludo. Alfredo Again, sorry for being unauthenticated at this moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC) +

I will be happy to assist. Let me know. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make it clear where the article was. It's on the non-talk side of that page. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally think your block of Dantheman.clark was a bit premature as the user had only had one warning(2nd level) and had not vandlised after it, I'd be interested to hear your side of the story... --Chris 11:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the only three edits he has made? All three are vandalism - deliberate attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia. If you wish to take responsibility for him then please feel free to lift the block. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 11:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That was just new user mucking around, that said the user would have most likely vandlised again(Its about a 25-50% chance of the user stopping in cases like these), ignore me, but i still think the block was premature --Chris 11:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just thinking over this a 24 hour block would have been better, if you have to block. --Chris 11:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to ignore you I would never have responded. As I said, unblock if you wish or reduce the block but I have no intentions of doing so. What is the science behind your 25-50% chance of additional vandalism? JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 11:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The 25-50% is a rough estimation I've from my RC work, I think in about 25-50% of the "new user mucking around" cases the user doesn't vandlise after a warning or two. --Chris 11:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Salting is the process whereby the page is prevented from being recreated under its present name.

How can that be done? When is it considered desirable? Can you cite some examples where it was done? Michael Hardy 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes an article is deleted but it is recreated over and over without improvement or correction and out of process. In order to prevent such recreation administrators can protect the page such that it cannot be re-created. It is like a fully protected page with no content. See WP:SALT for a further explanation and CAT:SALT for examples. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 01:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, right now Im a Student at Mississippi College but my home is in Hoover, even though Im not living there at the moment. weems 03:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Mississippi College in Columbus/Starkville? I'm from Tuscaloosa county - grew up there and went to UA. I go through Hoover often. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 13:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nicolas Rost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Rost. Thank you. Edcolins 10:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You previously speedied it. --Edcolins 10:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Tanyawade 08:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You stated that the article is no longer a target for speedy deletion, yet that tag remains, so as long as that does, the hangon tab must also do.

Remove the Speedydelete tag, if you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigantian (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Have done so anyhow. Thanks for the re-edit. Brigantian 16:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I see, there hasn't been a speedy tag there in a long time, only the hangon tag which will cause it to show up in the CSD category. So the hangon tag shouldn't have been there without it. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop the impersonations of me, before I get upset --Santa on Sleigh (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a viable article.

No its not, at least not in the condition you left it. It must assert some reason for notability. It is not necessary to establish that notability at first but must come later. Your article was almost an attack piece on some user on a forum that you disagreed with. Rewrite it, assert importance and we'll see. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather then allowing some time for it to be expanded and tweaked you deleted it. You say that notability can be established at a later date but that seems impossible if it gets deleted within a half an hour. Brandonha (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to read what I said. I said it must assert notability, not establish it. That takes all of about three seconds when you write the first few words to make the statement that the article is important because... Please note

• The article has now been deleted 6 times by other people.
• The article begins by attacking some forum guy, not asserting notability in its own right.
• If the best thing you can say about Direct Exhaust Injection is that it is a mistake, then I suspect there is no notability to be had.

If you wish, go to WP:DRV and ask for reconsideration. I would suggest very strongly that you read WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks. JodyB _talk 00:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Clarence ballroom, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarence ballroom. Thank you. Evb-wiki (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. It was a mess last night when I found it -- you should've seen it! Tried to clean it up but it was really too far gone. Anyway, I'll take a look at your reasoning. JodyB _talk 12:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

see my talk (keeping the thread in one place) --Alvestrand (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I knew I forgot something. --barneca (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to the edit warring at Greater Albania, you blocked two edit warring parties and protected the article. However, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. With the article protected there is no way the two blocked parties will be able to revert war on that article. So... one of your actions should be overturned. Personally, I have a preference for unprotecting the article and leaving the blocks in place. -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a point there about unprotecting the page. I personally have no intention of unblocking the two editors but I see no reason to lock the page any longer. I'll drop the protection. JodyB _talk 19:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

a little notice since you acted about the revert war that had me as a participant: user:Bardhylius starts it again[4], says "see discussion page" and what I find there is a personal attack [5] (see discussion entry on the bottom and other..) Thank you. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was first changed by TheFEARgod as he/she wanted to include another section were he/she alleges persecution. Apparently, this was started by that user, I was only defending the original essence by responding to the claims in the discussion page. I'm very disappointed to see TheFEARgod avoid the discussion and instead opt to add the proposed sentence. I think the article should be left as it was and we have to discuss the changes before applying them. The proposed text by TheFEARgod is highly controversial as I have proved it to be very unreliable and nationalistic in the discussion so one must discuss the proposed changes in the discussion page first. TheFEARgod apparently is not ready to do so and rushes to change the original article to add his proposed claim, this way leading an edit war. I ask for him to leave the article as it is and solve the dispute through discussion first. Bardhylius (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you might not remember but tonight (I think) you warned a 76.175.113.121 about userpage vandalism, he has done it again to another user, and I have put him/her up for a block for a few days for him/her to mature; would you like to do the honours? Cf38 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way I noticed the prat wrote or replaced your user or talk page with the slogan: fuck you; I think he deserves a block.

Also I've just noticed the pathetic neanderthal has vandalism my userpage 3 times, I quote: Cf38 is a britfag who rapes babies; Please put a perm block on this,

thank you,

Cf38 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, JodyB - my name is Keeper, and I've been (secretly) looking for someone to look over my contributions and consider adopting me. I've been an avid WP reader for years, and only recently (August 07) begun editing. I love it. I've amassed over 2000 edits in my short tenure and have started to feel the pinge of desire for the "extra buttons". I've always been a mop at heart, not a major creator of articles or anything of that sort (my userpage says I'm a lover not a writer). While I don't believe that I have any serious issues that need to be resolved, necessarily, I would like to have the ability to delete/restore articles someday (as well as fight vandalism and anon./new destructive users) and thought I could perhaps use some help from someone who was able to become admin through self-nom. I've looked over your user page, your recent contributions, your rFa from last July, and your comments on other people's userpages and have to say I am very impressed with your style and approach to this project.

A little bit about myself, although I don't think I'll ever be as open about my "true" identity as you are on your user page (not to say that my user page is false, just that it's anonymous by choice). I am also a married man, with one child, and I hold similar political and "religious" views. Not that that is the most important consideration for me, I actually chose to contact you (and only you) regarding adoption, based on being in the same timezone. (is that trivial or what?). Only after I went to your userpage (from the adoption link) did I discover that we are relatively like-minded, like-educated, and hold similar philosophies for what Wikipedia is, and what it definitely isn't. Although we're in the same timezone, we are not by any stretch in the same climate (my house received almost an inch of snow yesterday. Our first snow was over a month ago.) I've enjoyed your comments on AfDs and other places (you use humor often and I tend to get your jokes :-). If you are open to the idea, after perusing my userpage, contribs, etc., please let me know if you would be willing to adopt a humble, gnomish editor. My biggest fault is probably getting carried away in AfDs, but I'll let you look at that yourself. My signature should have the links you need! Thanks, JodyB! Keeper | 76 18:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take you on. I created a workpage for us to use at User:Keeper76/adoption. Go there and we will continue our discussion. JodyB _talk 19:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, JodyB. I've watchlisted what you've asked me to. On another note, I'm going offline until tomorrow morning. (again, we're in the same timezone, so I know that you know what I mena by that). I plan on reading what you've asked me to read tomorrow. This is my last post regarding this adoption on your talkpage. I will post relevant topics/responses/etc. on the subpage you created. Thanks again! Keeper | 76 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am Behnam. I was very frustrated because if you see what I'm being blocked for it's ridicolous. Here is my proper response to the Admin that blocked me. Please place it on my Talkpage or unblock it so I can place it there.

I think you are familiar with my previous two block were you were mistaken and ended up apologizing to me because the user that accused me was a sockpuppet of a previous banned user (user: NisarKand/user: Dilbar Jan/etc). I am very sure that once again this user: Hurooz is another one of his sockpuppets, again he edits the same articles and again he tries to get me banned. If you don't believe that, then atleast let me explain all of these edits and you'll see that whoever reported this is manipulating you.

• 1) [6]Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge that kings at that time had sex with young boys. Am I getting banned for just one unreferenced edit?
• 2)[7] This is an RV of vandalism! It is already sourced in the articles infobox that he was born in Multan.
• 3) [8]I explained that edit on the talk page here
• 4) [9]Putting Her Majesty sounds POVish
• 5) [10] This is an RV is very bad writing and vandalism!
• 6)[11] The president's website is already on the president's article (Hamid Karzai).
• 7)[12] I listened to him and asked for a guide on external links, see here
• 8) [13]I removed vandalism, someone removed REFERENCED content and there was concensus on this, see the talk page!

Conclusion, once again you banned me without proper investigation (this is the 3rd time). Now I have explained each of these edits and it's clear there is no reason for you to have banned me. Please unblock me or unblock my talk page so another admin can see my explanation.

-- 64.229.19.171 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to make the analysis of the problem yourself? I urge you to do this, otherwise page protection would be largely useless. Alæxis_¿question? 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am. In fact, I am looking at your edits right now. I am fully aware of how page protection is used. Thank you.-JodyB _talk 14:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is how it should work, not how it always works :). Ask me questions if something is not clear enough... Alæxis_¿question? 14:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

On November 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alabama Drydock and Shipbuilding Company, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Was this DYK not expanded 5 fold? If so, be careful next time. You may remove this note after you read this. I don't want to diminish your recognition of improving the article. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a sec with that William Rodriguez IP, OK? They just left me a note about BLP, I'm looking at it now. Peace, delldot talk 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't get to you in time. I'll get back with you in a minute once I've had a chance to look at the edit closer. delldot talk 19:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted large page blankings over two edits by an IP with no edit summary. I am not sure what you are talking about. I did not revert you unless you are the ip. JodyB _talk 19:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the hurried message. They left me a note saying the page was defaming the subject, so I wanted to look into it before reverting them. I think they might actually have been doing it in good faith, though obviously they were going about it wrong. Looking at the page, there are definite problems with the parts they were blanking, which I'm trying to figure out how to fix now. Peace, delldot talk 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, thought I'd leave you a link to the discussion I started on the topic: [14]. You might consider unblocking that IP, since they probably meant well and just didn't know how to go about communicating what they wanted to do. IMHO. Anyway, sorry for the annoyance, take care. Peace, delldot talk 21:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jody, thanks for the unblocking. As a newbie I do not understand the whole process and for that I apologize humbly. I saw Mr. Rodriguez on Television talking about it and how the page was restricted by the user originally vandalizing it- jazz2006 and how he was sadly attacked by it. Mr. Rodriguez is a Latino Hero who on 9/11 was an atheist and prayed to God for help and received it. He received the National Latino Pride Award for Lifetime Achievement, for helping the needy, after 9/11. Not counting the heroic worked he did saving people at the risk of his own lifw on that terrible day. All of this is ommitted. Please check frequently for any changes and do help to make it a fair and balanced portray of his image. Jrandi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.110.174 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi JodyB,

My name is Pranay Agrawal and I am with a company called Fractal Analytics. My company page on Wikipedia is being vandalised by some former employees of the company. If you take a look at the history of the pages under "Fractal Analytics" you will that someone is consistently posting libelous material on the company. Is there anyway this can be stopped?

Thanks

I have protected the page which should prevent the unregistered people from editing it. JodyB _talk 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Jody

Thank you very much. I deeply appreciate your quick response. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrawalpranay (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jody, My name is Ramakrishna Reddy, I am a co-founder of Fractal Analytics. You have protected the page and hence no changes can be made. However the founders section is incomplete as it talks about only three founders. Pradeep Suryanarayan and I are also founders of the company and built it for 7 years from 2000 to 2007, this fact can be checked from the links I posted on the discussion page and also if old pages of fractal wiki are stored from them too. Because of dispute with other three co-founders mentioned there we have to leave the company but that doesnt change our position as co-founders. We continue to be shareholders and co-founders and hence request you to add this to the founders section as I have requested on the discussion page. Thanks, Ramakrishna Reddy Lettruthprevail (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lettruthprevail (talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 

Fractal Analytics is semi-protected, that is, any established editor can add material. You must have had an established account for 4 days before editing. The protection will automatically lift at 1954 on 4 December 2007 (UTC). You are doing the proper thing by taking your edits to the talk page for discussion. I will tell you, as I have others, you have an apparent conflict of interest in editing this page. Please read our policy here. In the meantime, I will leave the page as is. Thank you. JodyB _talk 19:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Lettruthprevail (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the auto-notice; seems you just posted to the wrong namespace on accident (and now that I think of it, I should have just asked you to delete it directly). I've moved the message to the user's talk page :) --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 12:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should have had that first cup of coffee. Thanks. - JodyB _talk 12:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jody, though I understand this is not the site to play blame game but I posted the content on Fractal employees as a question as it really made me think. Also it seems all Fractal's founders are trying to control the contents of the main page. If claimed facts about Fractal employee is not true, don't you think related key people like Pranay, Srikanth or Nirmal would simply deny it and would request whoever is claiming this to come forward. I personally believe that if this is true then by deleting it we may be misleading others about the fact of the company. Don't you think it would be against the basic principle of wikipedia?

Keeptrack 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. Charges and allegations are being made about the company that reflect very poorly on the individuals who manage the company. Such is certainly not prohibited, in fact, I told one of the authors on their talk page that negative material could be posted to the article. However, the material being posted to the talk page is completely unsourced and therefore unverified. If those former employees - who also have serious WP:COI issues as well as the present operators - can come forth with material that is verifiable, supported by reliable sources and is not simply a gripe session or original research, it can certainly be added. Note to that this is not the first time this has come up. I protected the page when the first wave came through. Now we have a group of brand new editors who are single purpose accounts trying to use the page for their own purposes. I do not fault you for asking the question. But it became apparent that nothing good was going to come from the answers. I do appreciate you asking the question here about my decision and action. Thanks, - JodyB _talk 20:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)