User:Secret/Archive29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 ScanSafe Deletion 2 Don't bother everyone 3 Waternish 4 Ben Shields 5 fring 6 Kahlen Rondot 7 Thanks! 8 Sunderland06 attack 9 Sunderland A.F.C. Squad 10 FAAFA 11 Happy Birthday 12 Hey! Congratulations 13 Telebiometrics = 14 Online banner 15 Causeway Carriage restored 16 Google Images 17 ShoutWire.com Deletion 18 Matlan Marjan 19 Block of Deedstar 20 Keith sorenson 21 Re: Adminship? 22 User:Matthew Richardson 23 Pirates Dinner Adventure

[edit] ScanSafe Deletion

Hi Jaranda, you deleted my page about ScanSafe after it was deemed appropriate by your colleague, FisherQueen. Can you please explain to me how my entry differs from the entries of the other companies mentioned in the magic quadrant, like Websense or SurfControl, and what I can do to ensure that my entry is successful? Thank you.--Brittcooper 12:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't bother everyone

This guy Jaranda will not respond to peoples questions, he is basically a nasrty little person who is on a power trip.

Hopefully Wiki will get rid of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.167.56 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waternish

any reason for deleting this page!!! Bongomiester 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongomiester (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Shields

Can you please tell me why you don't think Australia's youngest ever politician dosent deserve a mention on Wiki? --Jez1985 05:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fring

Hi Jaranda,

Please reconsider your deletion of the fring article.

The deletion of this article seems very biased, seeing that skype, pidgin IM etc all have articles and this is exactly the same type of article. fring is a new mvoip system but it is in over 150 countries already making it very notable. The references are valid and there is no difference between references in the fring article and the skype article.

I beg you to reconsider.

regards simon Goplett 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I also request you rethink this deletion. I have seen several "admins" delete this page without actually stating a reason for it other than "blatant advertising". As all users who have complained about the deletion have mentioned, Fring is exactly the same as ICQ, MSN, Skype, Yahoo, and many many more applications that all have pages that are exactly the same as the deleted Fring pages. Several people who have recreated these pages have put valid references on but still the admins keep deleting them - why????? What have you go against things like this that are a huge step forward in technology and are worthy of an entry.

Using the excuse of "blatant advertising" is not good enough. If it is then delete pages for the applications I've mentioned - they even charge for their software unlike Fring so they more than anything have something to gain out of "advertising" on Wikipedia.

Smaunsell 13:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus in WP:AFD, no Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 01:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kahlen Rondot

I want to have you check the comments on this page. I wasn't sure if I should put my comment there or here, so I did it there. The page was a redirect, and I thought that created the false impression that she had a page, and was going to nominate it for AfD, but I discovered it was already nominated, and that the decision was to Delete. So I modified the page to indicate the consensus for deletion. I'm now not quite sure that was the best decision. Since you were the one who officiated over the AfD, I thought I'd ask your opinion. Maybe I just don't understand how the process works. Still, I always take the WP:BOLD approach, and figure if I screw up, someone will fix it. This time, however, I wanted to expedite the process so I can learn from it more easily.

-- trlkly 07:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, the decision has apparently been made by someone else. Apparently, after Delete is chosen, it's perfectly OK to come back and make it a redirect. I'll just remove the recursive link in the Top Model article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trlkly (talk • contribs) 08:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunderland06 attack

Very sorry about that nonsense, was totally uncalled for you were only doing your job. Soz --Sunderland06 21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about removing it, it was because it is in the orange banner and i didnt know if youd found it --Sunderland06 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jaranda can you look on my talk page please and reply, thanks --Sunderland06 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunderland A.F.C. Squad

Well... the players that I have added are according to the squad list provided on the official site and skysports...

Just like for ManU, even Jonny Evans and Danny Simpson hasn't kicked a ball for them, they are still included in the template, the same for other teams as well...

If only first team debut is needed to take account for inclusion in the squad template, we also need to move J.Richardson and Carson -Kkkc 02:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAAFA

User:NBGPWS is one of FAAFA's previous accounts. NBGPWS' block expires in March, can you indef that one as well? - Crockspot 03:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Secret/Archive29, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:16, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey! Congratulations

Bob Meusel got promoted! It's FAC. That makes me really happy. --Mattisse 03:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telebiometrics =

Greetinmgs:

I know you have gone on wiki break, but please do not delete the entry on telebiometrics. I am a Professor of Rhetoric at Penn State University working closely with emerging biometrics technologies, and the entry is neutral and fact driven. I seek only to include information about biometric technology mentioned in another wikipedia page and now in standard use by Intl organizations. In addition, your deletion was not a deletion of recreated material, since the text was very different from my first attempt months ago, before I understood wikipedia style. Telebiometrics is real, and wikipedia users around the world will benefit from the informatiom regarding these rapidly emerging technologies. Wetwarexpert 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted per WP:AFD before, and the content is similar to the deleted version, which was deleted because of lack of sources. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online banner

Can you add this to your talk page please

Replace online with offline for offline. --Sunderland06 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no point. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 17:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so i know if your online so i can ask you questions. --Sunderland06 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll be around, and I'll response when I'm online, this week I'm editing rather less though (essays and more essays) Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Causeway Carriage restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.--Chaser - T 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Images

Are you allowed to add images from google. --Sunderland06 08:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's better to create the image yourself, google images are copyrighted Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ShoutWire.com Deletion

Shoutwire.com is a well established social bookmarking website and SHOULD NOT be deleted from wikipedia. The site is listed on other wikipedia pages. Shoutwire is a social bookmarking website just like DIGG.com, yet DIGG's wiki page is not deleted. This is outrageous. Please restore the shoutwire page, it is not spam.

Pages that wikipedia has for shoutwire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Shoutwire_March_2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_software#Social_bookmarking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TorrentSpy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumberland_County%2C_Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_Institute

(Pieszbob1 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Any sources that isn't wikipedia, see WP:WEB Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We will add a history section to the page. Also did you want links about shoutwire that are not contained in wikipedia? Can you restore the page so we can edit the history? (Pieszbob1 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Jaranda, this seems to be a part of a larger spam cmpaign see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.shoutwire.com --Hu12 20:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

PART OF A SPAM CAMPAIGN!? ARE YOU SERIOUS? This is nonsense! Every single website listed on the social bookmarking website list has a wiki page, except for...YOU GUESSED IT: Shoutwire. Someone on here has it out for shoutwire.com. This is absurd. Shoutwire has a user base of over 60,000 people. Shoutwire is not spam and you know that. Shoutwire is even publicly traded! Why does everyone on wiki have it out for shoutwire? Who do I need to get in contact with to have this problem resolved. The admins who keep deleting the shoutwire page for spam need to actually do some research before they just delete things.

(Pieszbob1 23:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Notability (web)--Hu12 00:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kind of hard to update the page when every 5 seconds it is deleted by admins saying it is spam. The page needs to be updated because the company was sold and bought by tubearoo. Which means shoutwire is publicly traded now. So please restore the page so someone can add a detailed history section. (Pieszbob1 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

I too am outraged that ShoutWire's Wikipedia page has been deleted. ShoutWire has a large userbase and is substantially different from other social news sites. If Digg, Reddit and other such sites have an entry, why not ShoutWIre? I agree with the person above me in that someone in the Wikipedia community has an issue with ShoutWire. That is the only possible explanation for the inexplicable deletion of a relevant page. ShoutWire's Wikipedia page stood for over 2 years, and now it is suddenly deleted...suspicious indeed. Actions like this certainly do not help Wikipedia's reputation.Bulshoy 15:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (web)--Nolat 1:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matlan Marjan

Thanks for the heads up. I agree that there isn't adequate sourcing to verify notability. I am, however, convinced that Marjan is notable enough for inclusion (having represented Malaysia internationally in football/soccer), but all there is for me to go on is a boxscore from the Web site of the English national team. With some research and translation of Malay sources, the article can easily be recreated. Cheers, Caknuck 07:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Deedstar

Hey Jaranda, I wholly endorse your username block of Deedstar. But we usually don't block account creation for username blocks. I'd endorse a hard block for disruptive editing if you want to do that, but I want to go fix some of the POV problems in ESADE, so I'm reluctant to do so myself. Thanks.--Chaser - T 03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the disruptive editing as well, I don't normally do that with usernameblocks nither, but impersonating is an obvious hard block. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A fair point. And I so agree. Thanks, J.--Chaser - T 04:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith sorenson

Hi. Thanks for the quick resolution to the above memorial article. Could you mention this to User:Anthony.bradbury, as I cannot understand why, being apparently over-sympathetic, he allowed the restoration of this article, and necessitated my submission of it to AfD - the kind of work most of us would appreciate not having to use up our time with. He will also be aware that User:Butterbutterbutter intends to recreate no matter what - see this talk page post. Non-notable is non-notable is non-notable. Thanks again. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Adminship?

Hi Jorge. I appreciate the offer, but I still prefer a few months to get the hang of things. I know I'm probably ready, but right now I don't see a great need for the tools. Thanks for noticing though! Spellcast 16:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Matthew Richardson

I disagree with your block of User:Matthew Richardson, which was unjustified. No one seems to have followed WP:AGF in this case. This user's RfA criteria may have been somewhat outside community norms, but they were actually backed up with a rational argument (on his now-deleted criteria page) and possibly weren't as stupid as they sounded. "Troll" is a subjective term, and I don't think anyone should ever be blocked simply for expressing an unusual opinion on an RfA (especially not one which is going to pass anyway). Yes, it's possible that the user was trying to disrupt the process, but I think he should be given a second chance. Would you object to me unblocking him? (If he acts in an overtly disruptive manner once unblocked, I would obviously support a re-block.) Walton^One 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen his edits, seem like an obvious sock of somewhat, all his edits were disrupting RFA. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen his edits. While he might well be a sock (he displayed unusual familiarity with the RfA process), he might just be a user who previously contributed anonymously, which is legitimate. And I don't think that having unusual criteria counts as "disrupting" RfA. As no one else has raised any objections, is it OK if I unblock? Walton^One 09:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates Dinner Adventure

Thanks for finally doing something about that article. However, I disagree with your judgment. As I clearly marked on the comments, it was an unfair "consensus". Wikipedia clearly says you can edit while the vote is going. I did. I found a lot of sources and references clarifying the place as notable. The delete comments were mostly before that. Doesn't that seem unfair? I had quite a few sourced articles from newspapers, journals, and whatnot. I think this is just a sake of "policy is policy" an old deleted article is doomed to not be able to find life on Wikipedia? Further you said people were arguing google hits, I don't remember that being a central argument. Please consider that you made a mistake with your decision to delete this article. Thanks, Nesnad 13:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV 131.94.55.106 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)