User talk:RenamedUser jaskldjslak904

My Archives

Deletion of Dharmanidhi Sarasvati Article

Hi, Can you un-delete this article? I was working on fixing it to meet the wikipedia standards, and wasn't done discussing it with other editors. I need more time to try to either fix it up, or I'll make it into a stub and then expand from there. Also, the discussion on Afd was unclear as to whether the problem was with Notability or verifiable sources. Please explain, or un-delete and move the discussion to the talk page or the Afd page. Thanks. Ms2i 20:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Electronic Order of Battle and COMINT metadata

Hello. I would highly appreciate receiving your explanation for the deletion of the above pages, after I've changed and added all the details I was told to, in order to make it appropriate an notable. At first, each one was marked under 'articles for deletion' and there was a discussion about the deletion. There was an agreement that those pages pass the notability test, though more work is needed. Then you have deleted them while i was working on gathering more information and sources, without further warning or asking me if i'm working on it.
After I've finished the work I was told to do in order to make those pages appropriate, I have recreated them. Again - you have deleted those pages.
At this point I assume that you saw a page that you've deleted few days ago, so you decided to delete it again, without even checking if any required changes had been made. You didn't read those articles, you didn't check the notability of these articles, you didn't open a discussion about the deletion of those articles and you hadn't even participated the former discussion. So, what have you done that gave you the right to re-delete those pages?

I'm looking forward for reasonable explanations if there are any. Otherwise, i shall re create those pages on the following few days.
Thank you. Comint 08:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil of the Future Closing

Just two questions- when you said the articles could not be deleted because of the GFDL, I wondered what you meant by that, and why these were different from all of the other articles that are deleted.

Also, I was wondering if it would be okay if I made the redirects more specific, so that they redirected to the section from the season they came from. I think that would make it better, but if not I wont. Thanks! I ^{(said) (did)} 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC

Deletion of Parenthetical Girls article

Hi, I'm sorry that I didn't assert the band's significance. However, they do fulfill the criterion that states "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources." Parenthetical Girls has toured extensively in both the U.S. and Europe. They have also toured with notable bands such as Xiu Xiu, Deerhoof, The Microphones, Casiotone For the Painfully Alone, and The Dead Science. Parenthetical Girls also meets the criterion "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Jamie Stewart of Xiu Xiu and Jherek Bischoff of The Dead Science have both been collaborators on Parenthetical Girls albums. All of this information was available in the article I wrote, but yeah, I failed to assert that it was significant. However, if you would restore the article I'd be glad to rectify that. Thank you. Kzkb1 03:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll undelete with the reliable source. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xiu Xiu and The Dead Science's involvement with Parenthetical Girls is mentioned in the second paragraph of this Pitchfork review. You can find an article about their tour, with dates, here, as well as tour dates on the Slender Means Society record label website, here. Here's a Pitchfork article about Parenthetical Girls touring with The Dead Science. Kzkb1 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Corner Pocket? Are you crazy?

Seriously. I worked extremely hard on that article, and documented every source that establishes notability. Another admin already approved the article, and now you marked it with no reasoning whatsoever except that it's not notable. No justification at all.

I'd appreciate it if you either:

A.) Added a proper reason for your actions.

B.) Reviewed the sources.

C.) Researched the topic and discovered how notable it is.

I'm not trying to seem aloof, but I worked very hard to establish the notability of my first article. I'd appreciate it if your attempt to shoot it down was at least of the same caliber.

Thank you.

Angerpeas 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was only 690 exact google hits that I saw so that's not convincing, and I didn't see any proof that it was in MSMBC and the link given of the Idaho Newspaper didn't have the webcomic. I only Prodded the article instead of deleting it, in which I could have done easily. I'm likely going to place it in WP:AFD tommorrow to see what the community decides of the article. See WP:WEB. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply typing the phrase into google and hitting continue isn't doing research. The fact remains that the topic in question WAS in MSNBC, and the link provided did indeed feature the webcomic - it truly meets the standards of WP:WEB. From what I can tell from the other content on your discussion page, as well as your 'barnstars,' you simply flag random articles for deletion. You're more of a vacuum cleaner than an administrator. Nevertheless, if you truly wish to bring it before the community, you'll be surprised at how incorrect you are about it. Angerpeas 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless,

Reason for Step2 article deletion?

Could you please let me know why the article Step2 was deleted? It was commented as not wiki-enough, revised, then summarily deleted. The tone and content were consistent with that used in the Fisher-Price wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher-Price)

See WP:CORP, needs to claim more notabilty. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of deleting the cordova cheerleaders?

I am only asking why you deleted it after I worked hard on it. I am a coach and I am much older than you so I think I at least deserve to know why it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technology coach (talk • contribs)

An high-school cheerleading squad fails WP:N. Add to the school article if you want. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. I'll try to be more succinct in XfD discussions; but sometimes the nom or prior editor says it just fine. I rarely use an amorphous "above", but I will be more mindful of what I do use. Thanks again for your support. Carlossuarez46 22:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???

Why aren't you responding to my question concerning the deletion process of the Daxflame article??? Why did you choose to delete it, even though it meets the notability criterion and contains reliable sources? I'd appreciate it if you would respond! — Slaapwel 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:DRV, I deleted it because the consensus was to delete, I discounted some of the pointless votes, by the way, the article was deleted over 10 times in 2 names. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously there wasn't any consensus, otherwise I wouldn't be here asking this in the first place. Secondly, there wasn't any valid reason. I asked the people who voted delete if they could provide me with a Wikipedia guideline/policy that validated their vote. None did. — Slaapwel 02:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 76

Hi Jaranda, I believe this page can be unprotected from creation. The page was deleted twice before because of crystal ball issues, but it seems like there is now confirmed reports being circulated about the event. See Talk:UFC 76 for links. Thanks. hateless 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of DaxFlame. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Slaapwel 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bishop's Stortford High School

I wanted to follow up with you regarding this AfD to determine why it was closed as "no consensus". Given that the article was modified to include rather clear claims of notability, backed up by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources, and that this fact was clearly noted by those !voting to keep the article, notability does not seem to be the issue. The overwhelming majority !voted to keep the article, with the bulk of the delete !votes coming from those who have expressed or supported the opinion that schools are not notable regardless of the number or quality of sources. While a "no consensus" may have the same immediate result as a "keep", a "no consensus" invites a second AfD for this article, when there is no justification for this. Given the actual results of the AfD and the well-supported content of the article, I would respectfully request that you reconsider closing this as a "keep". Alansohn 03:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Consensus means the article is kept anyways. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I had indicated above, "Keep" means that there was a consensus to keep the article as is; "no consensus" means that there was no clear agreement as to how to handle the article. While the immediate result may be the same -- the article is not deleted -- your choice of "no consensus" does not reflect the consensus of those participating in the AfD and invites future AfDs for this same article claiming that the previous AfD had not been conclusive. Given the actual results of the AfD and the well-supported content of the article, I would respectfully request that you reconsider closing this as a "keep" or explaining what level of consensus would need to be reached, above and beyond that demonstrated here, to earn a "keep" close for an article. Alansohn 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a consensus in four-five delete votes which a few after reading them closely aren't really valid and about eight valid keeps, I usually discount the all schools are notable thing. So I guess I will change it to a keep Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have developed a standard text that I often pass on to those who specify "all schools are notable" that encourages the individuals to review the WP:N policy and make reference to it if the article meets the criteria. Thank you for your consideration. Alansohn 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement

This is me on the cheerleading and football pages.When you do undelete them please let me know. Also could you tell me how to add them to the school page?Thanks(Also you may notice I recreated the football one if possible could you leave it intact until you undelete the other one? thank you)

               Daniel Skinner a.k.a. Technology Coach

Novaspect

You have removed the speedy deletion tag i had added. Can you let me know why? Do you not agree with the speedy deletion or with the reason?

I wasn't sure about the speedy deletion, it was a company founded in 1936, and a subportion of a more major company. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot May

Just to be clear, I did not say (and do not believe) that your AFD was in bad faith. I closed it under WP:SNOW after 8 keep votes, none to delete (other than your nom.) and a specific policy at Wikiproject Baseball that stated that a person playing one MLB game was notable. I didn't see any chance that a consensus would develop to delete. I understand your disagreement with the policy, but it's probably better to take that up at the Wikiproject. NawlinWiki 14:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Closing AFDs

Hello. Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions permits the closure of AfDs as delete by non-admins. Unless I actually closed an AfD wrong, I think I should be permitted to close discussions as delete and will continue to do it. I was just trying to help you admins, you know. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested community input here. --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should not remove the sentence in question until consensus is achieved. Only you oppose the proposal, you know. --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs featuring a theremin‎

This is the first time I've felt strongly enough to question an admin about the closing of an AfD discussion, but it seems to me that in this case the keep opinions were particularly weak and unrelated to the nominator's citations of guidelines, whereas most of the delete !votes (which outnumbered the keep !votes) offered better arguments. Could you expand upon your reasons for concluding that no consensus was reached? Deor 00:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the delete votes were weak as well, I didn't see consensus in that AFD. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of songs featuring a theremin. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Deor 13:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Female promiscuity

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womanizer (2nd nomination). Is there a way to see the content that existed prior to the redirect? I think there was some content on female promiscuity that coudl benefit the Promiscuity page. Canuckle 18:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I transfer the content of womanizer to wikinary when I closed the AFD. Maybe it could be found there. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Gorilla Zoe redirect.

Currently redirects to his group, Boyz n da Hood. Now I think Big Gee (rapper) and Duke (rapper) should redirect, as they have little to no notability outside the group. Zoe, however, has a solo single out, called "Hood Nigga" which has peaked at #36 on the Billboard R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart (under its amended name, "Hood Figga"), and it is the first single from his upcoming album called "Welcome to the Zoo," set for release on September 25, 2007 on Block Entertainment/Bad Boy South. Not to mention he has collaborated with Yung Joc on his single "Coffee Shop (song)." The Billboard charting is very notable, so my choice is Unprotect, so a quality article can be written. Tom Danson 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced it, but it needs Reliable sources though, and no mixtape nonsense. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

You should better change your sig to remove the div parts of your sig as it screws up a closed afd or rfa. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jaranda, already done. I know I still have some old {Afd} comments out-there with my old signature. Sorry for the inconvenience. Shoessss | Chat 21:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JimmyBoi page

Can the block on creation for JimmyBoi please be taken off, as I wish to create a real page for him. I realize that it was created several times, but I truly wish to create a real article.Silver seren 21:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not convinced, I didn't see any good sources out of the only 737 google hits found on him. See WP:MUSIC. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what kind of sources you are looking for. I've got three interviews so far...myspace page obviously doesn't count much. *is yahooing as he is posting*Silver seren 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of the sources I was able to scrounge up.

His Myspace Page

An Interview

Another Interview

Oh wow, another interview! XD

His Official Site The server's down for the moment

A Couple of Photos

A Series of His Music (Playable)

His Xanga Page

A Video Clip With Him

Silver seren 00:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are reliable though, something like a newspaper, or even a allmusic page could be worth it. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers don't usually cover hip-hop...much less and Asian hip-hop artist. *sigh* I'll keep looking though and I guess i'll go to the next person on the list.Silver seren 01:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong

Please see also see User talk:Ryulong--History where I asked for an apology regarding his WP:BITE and WP:BLOCK for blocking me for a week without cause, and instead of apologising, he redacted my posts seconds later, and still offered no apology. I won't contact him again to avoid 3RR edit war, but his surprisingly horrid behaviour in face of a simple apology request is outrageous. His last edit comment was "My removal of your comments should be a hint as to drop the damn issue". 121.208.181.37 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem out of hand. Oh and this is a random comment. I'm not entirely sure why he and the rambling man were saying that you were getting out of hand, when you were just explaining the situation. I suppose he didn't like it because everyone could see what he did then. It seems like he's overextending his admin powers.Silver seren 00:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: OMG O_O There is something wrong with that guy. Though the good thing is that it looks like Jaranda has dealt with it. I hope the guy doesn't do anything like that again.Silver seren 00:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rambling Man wasn't talking to me, but rather to Ryulong. See where he took Ryulong to task for deleting RM's comment? I hope it is handled, but a simple apology rather than telling me to 'drop the damn issue', would have resolved the matter in my mind. I spent a lot of wasted time, time I volunteer here, to correct his jumping of the gun without enquirying into the matter (after it was already shown I live in another part of the world than the banned user). So instead of apology, I get rudeness that has to then be addressed with others. 121.208.181.37 01:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to go to his talk page to say the same thing, and apparently a lot of other users were thinking along the same lines. The problem here is that no one has been willing to file an RFC, because it takes forever. Perhaps you would be willing to file and RFC on this user; I will try to help out if I'm around. This user's blocks are so trigger happy that it's scary (not to mention that people did try to file RFC's on him, but he deleted them and salted the page: [1], though it was from a banned user).The Evil Spartan 16:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait, wait...so he deleted the first RfC, saying it was trolling???Silver seren 01:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French apartheid AFD close

A request for another time - please wait more than an hour. This is not the most obvious close. Why? Because the issue is policy related points made by each side, and that can take time to size up. The "Closing" template specifies an hour, perhaps more if messy. You allowed 1/2 an hour [2].

It's not a big deal, but a friendly request for another time. Thanks! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jjj222

I believe that user:pascack is back as another sockpuppet. A brand new user (jjj222) has made edits on a pascack pet project, discrediting joe girardi as a yankee. and 192.234.99.1 is not blocked, which is his ip. Mghabmw 17:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of the page, the change to the team colors was made by Soxrockprojects - who made the colors both Cubs and Yankees. I did not make that change other than to change the font color to red under the Cubs portion (half the team colors remain for the Yankees). My only other change was to add a comment that Girardi continues to announce for the YES Network. I did nothing out of line. Jjj222 17:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also put cubs colors on top and were warned to stay away from the articles that put you in trouble, if you truly are Pascack. In that case, you're supposed to be blocked anyway!

(Sorry for arguing on your talk page) Mghabmw 17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake

I'm writing you since I reformatted your entry very slightly, to make it clear that it was a vote for deletion (here's the diff). I hope you don't mind that I did this; I know it's risky editing things like this, and I wanted to make sure it was OK with you. Thanks, +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CallWeaver Article Deletion

Jaranda, I realize that the discussion is over, but I still highly disagree with it. How long do I (or someone else) have to wait before trying to add the page again?
CallWeaver is a solid project, used by lots of people, and I believe that users of Wikipedia would benefit from being able to learn about it. Mm 202 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians appearing on Beavis and Butt-head

Hi, you deleted this page on july 17 with the explanation that it had no content, which may have been the result of vandalism, but in the past this page was a complete article. Can you restore the page so that its previous content can be retrieved. Thanks. —Kymacpherson 13:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry can't see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of musicians appearing on Beavis and Butt-Head Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I missed that the page was renamed and then deleted. From looking at the page linked above (... and Butt-head) its pretty hard to figure out what happened. —Kymacpherson 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a point, certainly

But I'm not disrupting anything to do it. If you don't like my reasons, ignore them. That's all you have to do. Kurt Weber 13:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

I updated a piece of data on your user page, hope you did not mind. Cheers! Navou 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd closure on Pataphor

I think you're supposed to try to determine if there's a consensus among the people responding to an AfD, not whether or not you're convinced by the comments. Twice as many people spoke up in favor of the article remaining as those in favor of deleting - 4 to 8 - and several of the "keeps" asked at least that it be merged with metaphor. Don't you think your action was a bit extreme? Tvoz |talk 20:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were no Reliable sources and violates WP:V which in a way makes it WP:OR. AFD isn't a vote counting process, AFD is to find consensus if the article meets policy or not, which this doesn't. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So mark it a stub and ask for better sourcing - or at least allow a merge discussion - was there some kind of emergency that needed rapid excision of this small article from the encyclopedia? It did have some sources, if I recall correctly, just needed some more. And at least one commenter pointed out that RS does not equal Internet-accessible. Tvoz |talk 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on "delete" for XYplorer from a new user here...

I'm a real newbie here and thus to avoid repeating myself, I'll first point to this entry I made regarding this topic : User_talk:Hdt83#Comments_on_.22delete.22_for_XYplorer_from_a_new_user_here...

As a loyal XY user, I was surprised and disappointed to discover that we as power users of XY, who are easily contactable via web, were apparently not given any chance to point out those sources that may have helped keep the entry here, or to adjust the entry to better fit with any criteria/requirements needed, which we would have gladly done. We dislike spam/commercial type entries as much as anyone, and would be happy to work with whomever to make an entry that would be acceptable to WP and to us XY'ers.

I do not recognize the ID of the person who made the majority of XY edits, but as they were correct and accurate, we users of XY saw no need to edit it further. Did that help lead to its removal? I would hope not.

Is there something we as XY users can do to help either restore or create a new XY page that meets the criteria needed? Because it IS a valuable piece of software and I would be unable to complete my daily tasks without it.

Thanks! (J Hallgren) (No ID here yet, or I've misplaced it...sorry) 151.203.127.31 21:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it via WP:AFD not CSD, nothing that can be done, other than WP:DRV which will be Deletion endorse the likely senerio. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...so how do y'all thus handle all the other similar software products (file managers) that have gotten much less press or coverage than XY? As there are a number of products listed in WP that I believe are definitely more obscure than XY is. 151.203.127.31 22:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the following

First off, why did you give Pascack an indefinite block after he was reduced to two weeks? That's not a good idea.

But really, why are you redirecting seasonal pages (2006 Kansas City Royals season, 1980 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season) to main pages? Those are very notable. Saying "How is this at all notable?" is a total lie! A Major League Sports teams season, regardless the result of the season, is very notable. And considering I and a few people will build those articles, do not redirect them again please, because all it does is make us work harder on them. Please Soxrock 23:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only your opinion, they aren't notable at all, there needs to be discussion for it. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?! WHAT?! ARE YOU SERIOUS? HOW AREN'T THEY NOTABLE? JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP THEY ARE MEANINGLESS? THIS PLACE IS EXPANDING AND YOUR OWN OPINIONS ARE STUNTING THE EXPANSION. THERE IS SO MUCH NOTABILITY IN THOSE ARTICLES THAT THEY SHOWER IN IT! I HAVE 2 PEOPLE WHO WOULD ALREADY SAY THEY ARE NOTABLE, AND 4 OUT OF 5 PEOPLE WOULD SAY THEY ARE NOTABLE! STOP IT! Soxrock 23:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So proof it. Two people isn't everything, consensus of other wikipedia editors are. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ksy92003 and Baseball Bugs. And I know there is more needed for consensus, but THEY ARE NOTABLE! NOTHING ABOUT THEM ISN'T NOTABLE! Soxrock 23:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fucks sakes stop screaming in my talk page, i am going to deal with the seasons articles in another way. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for yelling, but you are making your own decisions without consensus and being bold means making edits that Improve this place, and you are hurting this place. Stop it NOW! Soxrock 23:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Jaranda, I agree that you are making rather hasty decisions, and I hope you will take a closer look at both Paul Avion and Pataphor. However, I intend to start a DRV to resolve the issue as both of these articles satisfied Wikipedia policy. Thank you

Afd closure on Paul Avion a mockery of WP:Music

The article, Paul Avion, clearly passed WP:Music (#6), yet you deleted it. Ridiculous. Why does Wikipedia have express policies if editors don't abide by them? It's absurdity. Moreover, it's a kind of violation of Wikipedia's own rules, which makes your deletion a mockery of WP:Music. Either read the article you intend to delete, or read WP:Music #6: in this instance, you have failed to do one or the other. A consensus of hasty, sloppy editorial comments does not create an accurate representation of what WP:Music spells out. On that page you could see blatant errors from editors: "His albums are self-produced." Inaccurate; read the article, which clearly states otherwise. "No notability." Inaccurate; read the article. This article clearly satisfied notability by WP:Music #6 and was thoroughy sourced to satisfy WP:V. You have joined a hasty, sloppy group of editors who have wielded authority without the proper time, research or knowledge of WP:Music (specifically, item #6). Sad. Ultimately meaningless, but sad, and for shame. Thanks Jchristie7 23:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see how it met #6 from the article it has to meet two guidelines from WP:MUSIC anyways, do a WP:DRV Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my friend, it only needs to meet one of the criterion (and it meets #6). Read WP:Music again. Yes, I did start a DRV, and have a good Sunday.

Why can't you just be nice and just copy and paste it? XD "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" There ya go...sorry for hanging around your page...I is bored. :/ Silver seren 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is blocked indef Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SoxrockProjects

I'm sure you've seen his spamming, but you may not have realized that he's using an alternate account and signing it with his main. I have no idea why he messaged me, but I thought I'd mention the alternate account thing, because it's not immediately obvious. Leebo ^T/C 00:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I edited out the canvassing. Now it's just an alert. Stop as I have undone my wrongdoing Soxrock 00:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's good that you stopped. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I edited out the canvassing even before you went beserk. I was just notifiying users of the controversy, went overboard, then removed the canvassing. Sorry for any violations, but I did abide by removing them as mentioned in the canvassing page Soxrock 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soxrock's comments

Why have you removed Soxrock's comments on other user's talk pages? You don't have any right at all to remove comments that another user leaves on another user's talk pages. Please revert your edits. Ksy92003(talk) 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soxrock was spamming othe people talk pages, which isn't allowed in wikipedia. At least Soxrock learned his lesson Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I, once again, removed the canvassing in them and made them alerts. Soxrock 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted another editor's comments on my talk page?

Why have you deleted another editor's comments on my talk page. The edits are not yours. The talk page is mine -- it is not yours. Why do you think you have the right to make these deletions? (In fact, you don't).--Epeefleche 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soxrock was spamming othe people talk pages, which isn't allowed in wikipedia. At least Soxrock learned his lesson Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I, once again, removed the canvassing in them and made them alerts. Soxrock 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the massive number of posts constitutes spamming, not just the content of the message, which you only altered slightly because they were still biased against Jaranda's point. Leebo ^T/C 00:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was notifying you of the controversy. Jeez Soxrock 00:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This was not disruptive canvassing. This was "a reasonable amount of communication about issues," which the guideline indicates is fine. At the same time, you have no right to delete other peoples' comments on my talk page. Come on -- you are an admin. You should know better. Point me to where in WP:CANVASSING you are granted permission to do that. You know that the general rule is that you are not allowed to delete others' comments -- that is a serious offense. And there is nothing in what you pointed me to that provides an exception. And even if this had been "disruptive" -- which it was not -- there is still no permission granted you to delete the comments. Your "relief" from the non-existent violation would have been ANI.--Epeefleche 00:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't spamming. If somebody were vandalizing another user's page, and the vandalized user told an admin on his talk page that he was vandalized, would that be spamming? Warning another user of another user's actions isn't spamming.

And you had absolutely no right to remove somebody's comments on somebody else's talk page. I don't know why you did it, and I don't want to know why. But don't do it again because you had no right do. Ksy92003(talk) 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you are getting the idea that this wasn't spamming. This is exactly the kind of thing the canvassing guideline is in place to prevent. Even if you found the note relevant, I know it was spam on my page, as I have never expressed an interest in the issue. I'm sure others would feel similarly given the number of users who received the message. Leebo ^T/C 00:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are on the Yankee project. Thought that you'd perhaps have an interest.

And it's not spamming. It's a relevant message. What is spam to you may not be spam to a bunch of people. So call it spam all you want, you are just wrong Soxrock 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I looked at WP:CANVAS. However, Jaranda didn't even go to Soxrock and asked him to edit his comments. He just reverted Soxrock's edits because he didn't like what was said, which he shouldn't have done. I'm not saying Soxrock was 100% right, but Jaranda could've handled this situation a little bit better.

Now, I don't know the whole entire story, so I'm gonna back out of it. I don't know all of what Soxrock did, so I'm not gonna worry about it. Good luck with this situation. Ksy92003(talk) 00:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly was not spamming on my talk page. Which is what I am focusing on. And Jaranda -- an admin -- has no right to delete comments by others on my talk page. As WP:TPG says, quite clearly: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed." There is not an exception given for canvassing. And WP:CANVAS does not state that canvassing on others' talk pages empowers Jaranda to delete the language. Even if it were innapropriate behavior. And I note that to the contrary the guideline indicates "It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive." But we need not even go there -- in no place is there a statement or suggestion that it is appropriate behavior for Jaranda to delete language on others' talk pages in this circumstance.--Epeefleche 03:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already said this elsewhere, so I'll mention it here also. I added back SoxRock's comments on my talk page which you had deleted. I saw it as a request to join the discussion, not as "canvasing". The several of us here are active on the baseball project page and would have noticed it at some point anyway, this was just a hurry-up. As I said on the project page, I've got some concerns about the individual season pages, but I'm not strongly passionate on the matter either way, and I figure "the process" will resolve the questions eventually. But I'm also not a "when in doubt, delete" editor. What I'm more passionate about is that I don't like editors messing around with other editors' comments on my talk page, and as I understand it that's supposed to be against the rules in any case. Unlike Tecmobowl, who would rub out anything he felt like, I like to keep all comments intact, whether they make sense or not, and then archive them when the page gets sufficiently large. I can't speak for anyone else here, but in future please do not delete or alter other editors' comments on my talk page. Danke schön. :) Baseball Bugs 04:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: socks

Are they all socks of danthewhale, or are they just assorted? Wizardman 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Wizardman 01:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the DRV - if you're going to accuse accounts of being sockpuppets you have to be more specific about who you mean - saying "most" of the people who voted keep are socks is not true as far as I can see, and is certainly unfair to those of us who are not socks. The DRV is still raising a legitimate question, however, so don't just dismiss it. Tvoz |talk 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, Jaranda. Thank you for your help today with the Minneapolis Post Office in DYK. Not everyone likes smileys, hope you do. -Susanlesch 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Kevin Love and others

Following your logic from the article deletion on the Syracuse basketball team, would Kevin Love, Michael Beasley, Eric Gordon, Bill Walker also be articles for deletion? The reason I ask is because one of the players you nominated for deletion was Johnny Flynn, and he, like all of the players I just listed (who aren't nominated for deletion), is a McDonald's All-American, and considered one of the top recruits in the country. I just feel like if you're going to nominate Flynn, you should nominate all of those players, as well as any others that are listed in the [Top 100] of basketball recruiting. I understand where you're coming from with respect to some of the other players nominated, but I really do believe that Flynn, who also is on Team USA for the U-18 championships, shouldn't be nominated. Thanks. Chengwes 06:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community. - Philippe | Talk 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half-barnstar?

Meaning that I'm halfway civil? Well, in the spirit of that, I'm half-overwhelmed. d:) Baseball Bugs 14:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A post at WP:ANI

As what your blocks with User:Pascack and User:Mghabmw are not only clear wheel-warring, but, in my estimation, a terrible miscarriage of justice, I've left a thread at ANI, asking your actions be undone. Please feel free to comment. The Evil Spartan 15:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Marlins game log

YOU DID WHAT? WHY THE HELL DID YOU DELETE IT? ARE YOU GOING TO DELETE ALL GAME LOGS FOR THE 2007 ARTICLES? JESUS CHRIST, BASEBALL-ALMANAC DOES NOT OWN THE MARLINS 1993 GAME LOG! YOU ARE TRULY GOING OVERBOARD! IF YOU DELETE 1993, YOU HAVE TO DELETE ALL OF THEM! AND IT'S NOT EVEN COPYVIO BECAUSE BASEBALL-ALMANAC, AGAIN, DOES NOT OWN THE SCHEDULE! I'LL RECREATE IT AND I WILL ADVOCATE THAT YOU GET FIRED FROM BEING AN SYSOP. SOXROCK 16:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Then I'll ask some baseball-almanac guy if they were allowed to display those with permission from MLB.com. And do not remove my comments. It's obvious you have a vandetta against me and against how I'm trying to expand the project SOXROCK 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a vandetta against you, im trying to inforse copyright, your likely wikistalking me by looking though my fucking contribs. Of course baseball almanac was allowed to display the stats with permission from MLB.com. But it isn't about the stats, it's the formatting. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Baseball-reference does not own copyrights to stats. And I've asked the webmaster at baseball-almanac about this issue. I'll see if your right or not. And I'm not stalking you, I notice on my watchlist when something is redirected. Oh, go figure Soxrock 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was stats Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. You were removing the stat sections on pages. I had just brought up the other controversy with the stats here. And I've yet to get an answer from the webmaster at baseball-almanac Soxrock 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a copyright issue

Baseball-Reference.com AND ESPN.com's STATS ARE LINKED, SOURCED, CITED, REFERENCED, ON EVERY SINGLE PAGE. WE ARE SAYING THAT WE GOT OUR STATISTICS FROM THOSE WEBSITES. WE AREN'T VIOLATING A COPYRIGHT LAW BECAUSE WE HAVE CITED AND REFERENCED THOSE TWO WEBSITES. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? Sorry for typing all big and bold, but I'm really frustrated that you don't seem to understand this. Ksy92003(talk) 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is you guys don't understand it, just because it's sourced doesn't mean poof copyright is gone and several admins tried to tell you that, ESPN and Baseball-Reference got permission from MLB, and we need it to and not from the webmaster of mlb.com, instead the commissioners office. Until then the articles need to be rewritten or gone. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN is ESPN. B-R is B-R. You're saying that just because it's baseball stats that we have to get MLB's permission to use them. You're wrong. It isn't copyright because we are saying in those articles that we got the numbers from ESPN and Baseball reference. That's why they have the stats up. There isn't a problem because we are saying where we got it from. We aren't claiming the stats as our own. Ksy92003(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP IT JARANDA! WE STILL CITED THE SOURCES! THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH! WE UNDERSTAND COPYRIGHTS BUT YOU DON'T SEEM TO ACCEPT THE CITING OF THOSE SOURCES! IF WE NEED TO, WE CAN E-MAIL THAT COWARD BUD SELIG! JEEZ Soxrock 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop shouting at Jaranda on his own talk page? Frustration or not, shout at your screen, not though the keyboard. Leebo ^T/C 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm just really really pissed off. Soxrock 17:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]