User talk:Jmlk17

Archives

Deletion review for Doctor Steel

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Doctor Steel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Coolgamer (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User

You recently blocked User:TurdFerguson006 indefinitely from editing wikipedia because of his user name being "inappropriate in nature" and revealing that he has no interest in contributing to the wikipedia community. While you may of had good faith in your action, I feel that the measure you took was a bit too extreme. User:TurdFerguson006 is a good friend of mine and I know that he wants to contribute positively to this community. I don't think that it would be wise to not deny him this ability because you view his name as offensive. His name by general societal standards is not really that offensive. Certainly not by internet moniker standards. I hope you review this request to unblock the user and treat this matter the way it should be treated. --Tobyw87 (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is that not an immature attempt to be offensive? Jmlk17 06:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well for one Turd Ferguson is actually the name of a character from a classic Saturday Night Live sketch. It wasn't contrived with the intent of being offensive. Its fine that you don't think that it was funny, but it wasn't blatantly offensive as your tag stated. Immaturity somehow crosses the line into profane how? I don't think admin's should go around blocking new accounts that they find "immature". That certainly is an abuse of their powers. I really do not think you want me involving other admins in this. But I will if you don't see reason in this case. It was not offensive and should not of been blocked.

--Tobyw87 (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm abusing my tools eh? Right. You want to involve other admins? Cool, have at it. Jmlk17 00:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to being polite and assuming good faith? Kinda ironic. :/ Xlittlecloudx (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What is? Jmlk17 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what Xlittlecloudx is getting at is its rather ironic that your user page proclaims good faith, politeness, and being welcoming, yet the way you treat new users is anything but. Out of all of the words in the English vernacular turd is not one that I would consider in the offensive realm. Considering that its said all the time in many acceptable societal spheres and generally most people don't squint their eyes when they hear it, I think its very safe to say its not an offensive word. Also, your complete unwillingness to even listen to my request underlines just how hypocritical you are acting as an admin on wikipedia. Think about what you did.. you blocked someone because their name had "turd" in it and labeled it as offensive. How is that not ridiculous? Tobyw87 (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Offensive, no. Immature, and an attempt at being funny without any reasoning behind it? Yes. Feel free to have them add an unblock template on their talk page. Jmlk17 05:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think you need to read up on the username policy before saying I'm a hypocrite or abusing my adminship. Jmlk17 05:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it stated anywhere that user names can't be "immature". The only requirements seem to be,

1. Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. For example, misleading points of fact, an impression of undue authority, or the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual.
2. Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia.
3. Offensive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
4. Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

Notice the "offensive" as opposed to the "immature"? I think you are the one who needs to review user name policy. Its not enough to just block user names because you don't think its "mature enough". You need a good faith belief that the user name you are blocking is blatantly offensive and by your own admission it wasn't offensive. Unless you can find a reference to "immaturity" being unacceptable in a user name I stand by my claim that you abused your rights as an admin. --Tobyw87 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you truly believe so, then file a complaint. I'm not stopping you. I believe a name like "TurdFerguson" is just a lame attempt to be cute, silly, and immature. Do you think a name like FartBreath would be fine? That's not immature at all is it? My point is, you can have your friend add an unblock request to his talk page, file a complain against me for "abusing my tools", etc. There are no names like that that are allowed to edit here. Jmlk17 05:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

/signed

'Assume Good Faith' it says it right there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knerlo (talk • contribs) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup... alright. Jmlk17 03:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your recent semi-protection of Condom [[1]]Helixweb (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course... glad to help! :) Jmlk17 06:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And Zebra. -- Zsero (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Zebra just seems like an odd vandalism target... condom I can understand, but Zebra? :) Jmlk17 06:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ... I thought the exact same thing ...Helixweb (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it either, but there seems to be a group of kids who think zebras are hilarious. Some of their contributions are quite clever, and I've advised several of them to try their hands at Uncyclopedia, but that unfortunately we stick to boring facts here. And then you have the uncreative ones who just stick "poop" or "penis" in random places and think that's funny. I actually find that odder, since most kids don't learn to spell poop until after it's stopped being funny.

BTW, Helix, <ref>-type footnotes don't work on talk pages, because there's no reflist at the bottom. And if you ever again need a page protected, the place to ask is WP:RFP; just adding the template is like drawing a lock on your door. -- Zsero (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just figured that one out, thanks...Helixweb (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently the Page "Combat Hapkido" was deleted. What steps do I need to take to get this page restored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.169.104 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Landon Cooksey

I just notice on my watchlist that you deleted Landon Cooksey, under speedy criterion A7. While I did not create the article, a few months ago I put some effort into cleaning it up and wikifying it a bit, explaining why it was on my watchlist. Although I am far from an expert (or even an amateur) in the field of microbiology, it seems to me that he was notable, as he was apparently featured on 60 Minutes. If you would give me a bit of time to try and find a couple of sources to substantiate some of the claims made in the article, I would appreciate it. Furthermore, I`m not sure if A7 even applies since, if I recall correctly, the article at least made the assertion that he was one of the leading microbiologists of his time. Random89 03:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored... best of luck. :) Jmlk17 03:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

About 15 minutes searching CBS, Fox News, and Google seems to have proven me wrong. Feel free to delete it or I will send it to AfD tomorrow or when I get around to it. Thanks anyways though. Random89 04:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It happens... re-deleted. :) Jmlk17 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Rob Ferguson

Hi there, I was the original creator of the page and would respectfully request that you consider reinstating it. I am in the process of gathering further information and reference material about the interesting career and life of Ferguson. I was perhaps a little premature in submitting the page without adding 'the whole story' but there is more good substance to come. I am not a Wiki expert (but learning fast) and have enlisted the help of various music industry folk to supply good reference material. Could you give the page another chance and allow me to show the full picture - there is some really interesting stuff to come? Many thanks --Sevenson (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, did you miss my comments - you seem to have answered the ones below and I'm feeling neglected! I would appreciate it if you were able to reinstate the Rob Ferguson page so that we can finish it off and properly demonstrate notability.

Many thanks, --Sevenson (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, I'm sorry! I did miss it, and I apologize! Would you like me to restore the article to your personal sandbox so you can work on it unimpeded? Jmlk17 19:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks that would be great. Also any specific tips as to what the article is lacking would be greatly appreciated. Cheers --Sevenson (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored here. My concerns are that the subject might fail WP:BIO. If you can prove his notability with good, concrete third-party sources, that would be key. Best of luck! :) Jmlk17 19:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Pinkneys Green Cricket Club

You recently deleted my new entry "Pinkneys Green Cricket Club" - (G12: Blatant copyright infringement) Please note that I am the author of the article on the external website and therefore there is no copyright infringement. You may also see that the last few paragraphs have changed as I myself updated the history to cover recent years. TO confirm this my name is on the website "Fixture Secretary - Steve Jinman". Please can you restore the entry. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjinman (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not proof of anything. Anyone can claim to be anyone on the internet. Jmlk17 04:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So how do I prove it? Sjinman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You must also be able to assert good notability as well. Jmlk17 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ok

eventuly, if you want me to stop making these sevctions, you'll need to leave one up. As i said before, i don't really like the deletion setup here, redlete this please South Harmon Institute of Technology--Jakezing (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like the deletion setup here. Let the AfD goes it's route. Jmlk17 04:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

Can you please unprotect Shamil Basayev. It's been closed for ages now. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jmlk17 04:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

2007 German Grand Prix

Hi, what was the reasoning behind using a speedy delete for this article? A redirect to another article which some editors consider logical does not (to the best of my knowledge) come under WP:NONSENSE. Surely a prod or even a full deletion discussion was required here? AlexJ (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NONSENSE is a bit of a blanket tag. The article was deleted for there not being a German Grand Prix in 2007. Jmlk17 19:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The initial calender for 2007 scheduled a German Grand Prix. Due to a dispute over naming rights, it was later renamed to European Grand Prix, to be held at the same venue on the same date. This is explained (and backed up by references) in the 2007 European Grand Prix article. It made sense for an event that changed it's name to have the initial name to redirect to the changed name. Also WP has clear guidelines of what can be speedied as 'nonsense' (or any other criteria) where it is clear the articles hold no value whatsoever - to me, this wasn't such a case. Where would it stop if admin's are able to subjectively delete articles under a so-called 'blanket tag'? AlexJ (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have put back the redirect. If deleted again, please give rationale and I may consider taking to RfC. Guroadrunner (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, wonder what a RfC would do... Jmlk17 01:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I figure it will bring a closing decision about whether this should be deleted, and there are strong reasons why it should not be. Guroadrunner (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of a deletion review. Jmlk17 05:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for prod deletion undoing

May I suggest you undo this prod and reinstate the article? [2] The publisher in question appears not to be a vanity press [3] . Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not entirely so, but is there any claim of notability? Jmlk17 19:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The author appears to be award-winning, the publisher is extensively covered in British publishing news, and is affiliated with Random House. I believe a book by such an author should be treated as presumptively notable. With the article deleted, of course, I cannot tell you what its original text claimed. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored. Jmlk17 19:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have cleaned up the article's form and added a pair of references; I hope someone with more knowledge of the subject will soon be able to expand it. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 19:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gmilf revisted

Hello, Jmlk. I was rewriting this when you deleted. I put it User:Dlohcierekim/GMILF, cause it seems to get some Ghits. Let me know whether it know passes muster. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Liane Cartman

Hi, when you're back online, please voice your opinion on Liane Cartman's article being merged into List of South Park families. Also spread the word. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Combat Hapkido

Hi, the page Combat Hapkido was recently deleted. This is an informational page that I was contributing to, that provides information on the Practice of a Style of Self-Defense called Combat Hapkido. I've acquired Citations from articles and sources that I'd like to add to this Wikipedia Entry. What steps are needed to restore this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnusRBHunter (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to establish notability? Jmlk17 00:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OpenNebula deleted webpage

Recently the page about OpenNebula (former GridHypervisor) was deleted citing blatant spamming. This is an opensource software in an European Funded Project called "Reservoir Project". I wanted to recreate the page citing more sources and making it comply with wikipedia policies but I think it is better to let you know about it first (as stated in the deletion notice). Here are some sources describing the project so you can see this is not vaporware nor backed by a company earning money.

• Project web page
• Reservoir Project Press Release
• virtualization.info post
• European Union web page citing Reservoir project

I can send you a draft of the page I am writing so you can tell me if it does comply or not with the policies.

Thank you very much. --Jfontan (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you put it in your personal sandbox, that would be great. :) Jmlk17 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

why did you delete it?

i do not see why you deleted the page i created —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtm824 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of notability. Jmlk17 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect page request

Guillermo Vargas
Would you please Unprotect this article? The alledged act of killing a dog for art has now been found to be a hoax. I hope that this will mean tempers will have cooled off and that this article will no longer be such a target. --Triwbe (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally a little bit hesitant to do so. I understand that the issue was a hoax, but after the last unprotection, issues flared against instantly. Perhaps you wouldn't mind making a request at WP:RFPP to allow for an impartial admin to review? :) Jmlk17 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Beat Dis - The very best of Bomb the Bass

Here we go again. A little bit upset that Sound Unlimited passed the Afd? Trolling through my edits are we? I will NO LONGER assume good faith with you. Youre a deletionist. An irritating one at that. I may be censured for this "personal attack", but to tell you the truth, once I've re-created the Bomb the Bass article (and informed the Article Rescue Squad), it will be worth it. Encise (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Encise

Jesus Christ dude, get over yourself already. I'm not doing crap to you. Jmlk17 04:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I didn't even delete that article. Quit freaking out about stuff, and try being calm dor a change. Jmlk17 04:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of MacFamilyTree

Thanks for deleting the page MacFamilyTree that I flagged. The creator has made it again. Can you delete it again and flag that user or block that page from being created again? (I'm not sure how this works) Thanks peterl (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Help! MacFamilyTree is back. I thought a deleted page couldn't be created again? peterl (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, they can usually. I've redeleted the page, and salted it to prevent recreation. :) Jmlk17 03:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Well done. peterl (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. :) Jmlk17 05:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks ;) Maybe you could delete and block these pages too: Brother's Keeper Family Historian Family Tree Maker Genbox Family History GeneWeb GenoProGenogram GRAMPS Legacy Family Tree LifeLines Microsoft Family.Show Personal Ancestral File RootsMagic SmartGenealogy The Master Genealogist GeneWeb Reunion iFamilyforTiger GenealogyJ Or just put the MacFamilyTree article back up. Thanks--Phantomschmerz (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (sorry for beeing sarcastic)

WP:DRV is thataway <---. Me too. Jmlk17 01:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Toronto FC Protection

Thank you for stepping in. I do have a few questions for you though.

1. How long will the page be protected?
2. As you know, the dispute is over the infobox. One side claims that the new version conforms to Wikipedia policy while the other claims that the old version (the one currently displayed) must remain until consensus is reached on the project page. What takes precedence? Personally, I thought we should go ahead and make the change to the new version which conforms to current Wikipedia guidelines until a consensus is reached on the project page. But when that is the case, which would take precendence? The Wikipedia guidelines on infoboxes or the project consensus? If we can't figure that out, then the edit warring will continue when the page is unlocked. Lucky Strike (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

Well, I locked the page indefinitely, so until a consensus is reached, it will remain so. Just gather everyone up on the talk page, and brainstorm away! :) Jmlk17 01:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I was given the Rollback permission quite some time ago to help with my RC patrol and with reverting vandalism. I have become quite fond of the tool and have used it a lot. Yesterday, I mishapenly walked into the middle of an edit war and tried to take control of the situation until I could get an Admin there. Once I did, the admin thought I was part of the edit war and didn't understand what I was doing. I have tried to contact him (Well, someone else did) and he is standing by his removal of the tool. I have explained the situation to him but he seems to be offline. Would you be able to give me the tool back? Thanks for your consideration, Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello there my friend. I am sorry for the troubles, and hope that this can get cleared up to your liking relatively quickly. But I am afraid I must decline at this time. I understand the tendency to be slightly impatient right now, but I would recommend re-applying at WP:RFR, or just wait for B to come back online/reply to you. Best of luck! :) Jmlk17 02:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the great work

Just want to say keep up the great work in doing your bit for taking care of those vandals and doing a nice job in reverting their nonsense. I have added some names to the AIV and have seen you take care of it, i appreciate it. Sometimes it gets frustrating when it takes a while for them to get blocked, i guess there are only 1500 of you. By the way i wouldn't worry to much about what Tobyw87 said on April 10. If you look at his user page he added a userbox which states he drinks water. That says it all right there. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Right on, much obliged for the kind words my friend! I try my best, and it's nice to be recognized now and then. :) Jmlk17 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Salubri

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Salubri. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Test Call Generators

Hi Jmlk17,

Please could you provide me with some feedback as to why you deleted the page 'Test Call Generator'? I and other Wikipedia users have been slowly building this page as a good source of reference as to what exactly a Test Call Generator is.

I was just coming back to the page to add a new independent source reference and shock/horror it had gone!

Some advice would be greatly appreciated as to why you think it's not suitable so I can work to improve the page - sorry but I am a bit of novice 'Wikipedian' but i'm getting there............

Thanks theratestman Theratestman (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Looking back now, the reason for deletion may have been a bit, uhm, off to say the least. Would you like me to restore it to your sandbox, or directly? Jmlk17 03:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Please could you restore it directly - thanks theratestman Theratestman (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Please could you restore it directly - thanks theratestman Theratestman (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, thought I had... done so now. Jmlk17 08:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the restore Theratestman (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jmlk17,

Since the deletion of test call generators i have noticed that if you type "test call generator" in Google there are no longer any links to the Wikipedia test call generator page?? Before you deleted the test call generator Wikipedia page the page was linked through Google - the page has now been re-instated for some time now, but do i need to do something else to enable to Google links? Thanks 195.112.48.159 (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope... all you need to do is add the links, and they should work directly. Jmlk17 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-prot on Cinco de Mayo

Thanks for the semi-prot on Cinco de Mayo. You will save me much reversion work as we approach this date! EspanaViva 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Very welcome, always glad to help. Jmlk17 03:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ensoniq Soundscape VIVO90

You deleted the entire article about this sound card? Uhhh... This is shocking, honestly. It's not as if it were a fake product. It certainly exists. Now all of that content I put together is just gone? Believe it or not, it is difficult to find references for some of these products (certainly web pages are difficult for products from 1996). I might have a magazine from back then with a review of it though. --Swaaye (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The direct reasoning was: no independent sources to indicate this company meets the notability requirements of WP:PRODUCT, as per the tag placed on the article page. We can easily work something out I'm sure. :) Jmlk17 03:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Toronto FC

Why have you locked the entire page? As far as I can see, there were a handful of edits made simply about conflicting styles for the info box. Nothing of substance in the article itself. The same thing was happening on every MLS team - but Toronto is the only one that is locked? The whole thing seems to be working itself out at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#MLS_team_infobox. I think the page can be unlocked - none of the other team pages have fallen apart without being locked. Thanks Nfitz (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, unprotected. Jmlk17 03:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nfitz (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMPFIRE TALES

Hi, Why did you delete the entire entry for Campfire Tales?

Issues with WP:PLOT according to the WP:PROD tag. Jmlk17 03:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

more deletion

i'v looked it over and now i can't find the page i thought was useable anymore lol. Bachelor of Science in Applied Science and Technology QWas nominated before, & in all honesty, is a single school degree.--Jakezing (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

a7x

thanks fer semi-protecting the article on avenged sevenfold.......there is alot of vandalism on that page 14:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)14:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)14:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Guitardude3600 (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. It had gotten so bad recently, I saw it listed at CAT:CSD for patent nonsense. Nothing a little reverting can't handle now eh? Happy editing! :) Jmlk17 17:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bruins

Awesone game! I'm guessing you saw it, because you updated it. Game 7! STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 01:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I could barely keep up the last 10 minutes lol. Montreal is trying to blow their great season. :) But as long as my Avalanche win tonight, I'm good! Jmlk17 02:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Which they did. :) Jmlk17 04:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

serendipity

Hi - Thanks for extending the protection on the PPA page. That was a cool serendipity / coincidence that you happened to be monitoring the RFPP noticeboard at just the perfect time to field the topic-mentorship-related request...

No-one likes to see pages protected for more than a short time, but with this topic it appears we haven't yet found a way to avoid that. Hopefully the method of proposing edits by working on a subpage first will help. Have a good weekend. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Very welcome my friend. This is a very heated issue (understandably), and hopefully the protection will help get the issues resolved in a quicker, easier manner and way. Have a great weekend as well. :) Jmlk17 04:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for protecting article , j.jayalalitha .

thanks for considering my request and protecting article , j.jayalalitha .

you deleted: Roach (game)

You deleted my entry for Roach (game) under the pretext that it was "very short, providing very little or no context to the reader". I believe this is a bad classification of the article: it was over two pages in length, including a thorough treatment of the rules and names of those who invented it. Please reconsider.

Aaronfalls (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much the length per se, as much as it is the complete lack of notability, and any reason(s) for why it should be included on Wikipedia. Jmlk17 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why was that reason not given for the deletion?Aaronfalls (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ford class

I want to apologize for overly boldly reverting your deletion of Ford class which after pauing to think I would have discussed with you first. But be that as it may, I don't think that is qualifies for speedy deletion as its past use shows it to be plausible and it remains useful to at least one user (i.e. me). Eluchil404 (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Jmlk17 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

New change in WP:MOSISLAM

Hi,

Three weeks ago I put a comment in the talk page of MOSISLAM and proposed using "The Prophet" in especial cases and about two weeks ago I changed WP:MOSISLAM [4]. Then I asked some wikipedians to tell me their ideas but nobody disagrees with me. Thus I want to insert it in the related articles. Now if you disagree with it, please write your ideaq [5]. Thanks--Seyyed(t-c) 06:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Topdeck

Hi there, Would you please consider reinstating the entry for Topdeck that I started last week. I did considerable research over the weekend that I was going to add this morning regarding the company's history which is a reflection of the budget travel market 1973 - present. The company has quite a rich history that is well documented in books, newspapers, etc. so would fit in nicely here. Many thanks. --Jimu16 (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanjay (musician)

Hey! Why did you delete my article to Sanjay?! He is a famous reggae and Dancehall musician. This article does also exist in the German Wikipedia. Please cancel the deletion and restore this article. Johan Hager (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any notability? Jmlk17 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a notibility. Please restore it. Johan Hager (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How so? Jmlk17 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on "2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs"

How am I (JoshuaKuo) vandalizing Wikipedia by editing "2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs"? JoshuaKuo (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo

You have been constantly adding scores and finals before the games were officially over. Jmlk17 05:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There was only 1 minute left in the San Jose - Calgary game with Calgary down 2 goals! What, do u expect that Calgary is going to win a Game 7 down 2 goals with 1 minute to go? That's just ridiculous! Anyway, even if Calgary wins, we can edit it again. That is what the Edit tab is there for! JoshuaKuo (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo

I've been at a hockey game where the score was 4-1 with less than 2 minutes to go, and the score ended up being 5-5 going into OT. Anything can happen, we're not a news source, so please keep it official and wait like everyone else does. Jmlk17 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

MS-13

Noticed you protected the MS-13 article, but there's a contributor with several sockpuppet accounts (all redlinked, never creates a profile for each account) that's keeps reverting the article back to an older, unsourced version. Needs to be a full block, or block the IP of the sockpuppets for that and the Mara 18 article. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of History of the toilet

I was wondering why my article had been deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstine2 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It was nothing more than a hoax article, full of glaring factual errors. Jmlk17 22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Unblock Request

I'm a pupil at the school with IP 212.85.20.99 and we've got an ICT lesson coming up at 3pm UK time (in 1 hour) on Wikipedia - the kids really need to be able to edit, so an unblock would be very much appreciated. I can vouch for all the teachers involved, and I'll keep a close eye on the contribs. Cheers —αlεx•mullεr 13:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know what happened today: I posted a thread on WP:AN about it, where it was decided ( / I was told) that reblocking to enable them to create accounts from school would be fine. The block still exists, but with account creation prevention off. Let me know if you feel the need to prevent account creation, but I'm fairly sure nobody there will go to the trouble of creating an account just to vandalise. In fact, don't worry about letting me know – it's your block, after all :). Cheers —αlεx•mullεr 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Will you please adopt me? Rohit Reddy (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

City Montessori School

Hi Jmlk17,

I was looking through my deleted contributions and noticed you deleted this article under WP:CSD#G11. I thought you might like to know that the version you deleted appears to have been a revert by 59.162.244.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) of my reversion to a non-spam version of the page that I found in the history (admittedly, it seems to have been a vandalized version, but that's a quick fix). In their haste, they appear to have also restored the CSD tag that I had declined based on the presence of a good version.

I'm of the opinion that the page should be undeleted, as it has salvageable text and a cited claim to notability as the largest school in the world by enrollment, but I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a second look and telling me what you think. Thanks! --jonny-mt 02:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good... restored. Jmlk17 02:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff; thanks! --jonny-mt 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. :) Jmlk17 03:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-possession

I am going to recreate the above article. I was in the process of denying the speedy when you got it. This is one of the principles of Satyagraha, a movement created by Mahatma Gandhi. And as the source I added showed before it was deleted, it is real. KnightLago (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right, it needs to be edited. I have the bad habit of posting while editing (instead of previewing.) sorry.--Ellesmelle (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your block of AAAAAAAAAA42

You blocked User:AAAAAAAAAA42 before they edited, claiming it was under the username policy.

I have to assume this is one of those "confusing username" blocks that have been deprecated in the username policy. Though there is still discussion going on, the username policy does not allow you to block a user just because their name is "confusing". For that matter, it also does not allow you to block users who haven't edited except in extreme cases, and this part is definitely not new.

But, even if you think confusing usernames are such a big problem that you need to IAR over it, I don't understand why this is a confusing username at all. Who's supposed to be confused by ten A's and a 42? Would you have blocked Ggggggggggggggg12 as well? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have. Jmlk17 01:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you care to elaborate on your response? I think you're taking admin actions that harm Wikipedia, and I'd like to know why you think it's so important. (Read the Ggggggggggggggg12 talk page for an example of why these blocks are a bad idea, and read Wikipedia talk:Username policy for much more discussion on the topic.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. AAAAAAAAAA42 isn't exactly the easiest username to look at, remember, type, or find. It is confusing, as it is a repeating letter, the only way of which to find how many is to count. Which their honestly is no reason to do so. As for the talk page, I read through some, found the "conclusion" (if there even are any), and it seems to be ambiguous as a definitive answer on the issue as a whole. Jmlk17 02:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine in what situations you would need to know exactly how to spell the name, because in all relevant situations you can just click on a link, or, failing that, copy and paste -- but if you do, counting the A's is really not difficult. There are ten. Most of Wikipedia takes a lot more brainpower than that.

We have established Wikipedians with much more difficult names than this, and WP:SUL will create many more. If you encountered a name in Chinese, would you block it too?

This is a minor problem at worst, the kind of thing you should at least try to discuss with the user before you indefinitely block them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It was an example... would you not block the username "AaAaAbBbBbCDEFGhiIl"? I would. And could I possibly ask what exactly the policy is on this? The talk page you pointed me to didn't clarify at all. Jmlk17 02:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy is on the project page, WP:U. It says that you should discuss these kinds of thing with the user instead of blocking them right off the bat. If they actively refuse to change a name that bothers people, then you can block them, but so far we haven't even needed that part. We don't block without a warning even for vandalism, so why would we do so with a slightly ugly username?

And no, I wouldn't instantly block "AaAaAbBbBbCDEFGhiIl". How would it possibly benefit Wikipedia to do so, more than it hurts Wikipedia's community by biting newbies? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

By keeping the confusion out. I think it's a delicate precedence to do so. I think usernames like "lIlIlIlI1l11lllII11" should be blocked right away... the more confusing a username, the more easily it is to mimic and cause disruption. Perhaps we're going to end up in the exact same spot here... disagreement. Jmlk17 03:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is "keeping the confusion out" so much more important than, say, "keeping the vandalism out"? Because vandals at least get warnings.

And, uh, you want to block "lIlIlIlI1l11lllII11" because someone might mimic him and cause disruption? Any name can be mimicked, and when that happens we block the impersonator and not the impersonatee. By the way, people have made your arguments before on WT:U, I've given approximately these responses, and then they drop the argument. It could be because I'm that unpleasant to talk to, I don't know, but I suspect it's because these arguments for blocking just don't hold together nearly strongly enough to override WP:BITE and WP:AGF. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an obvious difference between vandals and username issues. That's comparing apples and oranges. WP:BITE doesn't exactly apply in this case, since the template {{usernameblock}} is courteous, polite, and quite helpful, certainly the most so of all our block templates. Each case is different and unique. Jmlk17 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an obvious difference, which is that vandals are a problem and repeated letters in usernames really aren't. I gave you this link before, but you really need to read User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12 -- by placing a very similar block, you could have been the one driving a professor of medieval literature off of Wikipedia.

It's not like anyone really says "RAR I AM GOING TO BITE A NEWBIE NOW" -- biting newbies happens when you don't think of newbies as real users and don't think through what your actions against them are going to look like on the other end. I don't think you would be very happy if someone "politely" blocked you for a reason that's unsupported by policy, and you're in a better position because you know your way around the site. There's just no justification for your block. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I disagree. Anytime anyone is blocked, a potential genius could be driven away. There's absolutely no way to ever figure that out definitively...ever. I may be mistaken, but I feel as if you're hinting at me perhaps abusing my admin tools. You say there was no justification for the block... I disagree. You say I violated WP:AGF and WP:BITE. AGF a bit perhaps, but past experiences say otherwise. BITE? Doubt it. You said earlier you had this same conversation with others in the past and that they "gave up" after a bit. Is that what you're going for? Jmlk17 06:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I want a reasonable explanation, or perhaps an acknowledgement that you misjudged. I don't want one of these flimsy explanations that fall apart under scrutiny. When I talked about people dropping the argument, I meant people on WT:U, where people should be defending this position if there was any way to defend it.

I have to get to the bottom of why some people find it so important to disregard the best practices we recommend at the username policy. There's a reason these blocks aren't in the policy -- because nobody can ever explain why they should be, except with tired old tales like "oh, I blocked them because someone else might have impersonated them" or "I softblocked them for the vandalism they haven't done yet". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright... I blocked them for their username. As per WP:U, it is confusing, and inappropriate, hence the block. It's a softblock, I left a polite template on their page, and there is no misjudgment about that. I think I've perfectly explained it. Your basis for me being wrong is a long conversation on a talk page that eventually reaches no conclusions whatsoever. Jmlk17 06:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:U, you didn't wait for them to edit. This part is not even controversial.

And as per WP:U, it's a far better idea to talk to them about their username. In my experience, it makes things come out better in every way. Good-faith users don't get bitten. Bad-faith users get caught doing whatever they were actually going to do, and they get hardblocked and not invited back.

If you want some shadow version of WP:U where things are different to be the policy, you should be able to defend it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I HAVE been defending it. You keep saying "read this, read that", and I have, yet I still not only think I did not violate any rules/policy, WP:U says "Usernames that are clearly unacceptable for use on Wikipedia, but have no obvious disruptive intent may be blocked indefinitely, but the block should affect only that account (disable autoblocks, and disable "prevent account creation")". That right there is justification. I didn't bite, I didn't hardblock, I didn't do anything wrong. Jmlk17 07:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's only justification if you're doing it in the larger context of the policy. That part's telling you how to softblock. The other parts tell you why (or why not).

"If your username or your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it. However, confusing usernames are unlike the disallowed usernames above because a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires an immediate block without at least an attempt at substantive discussion."

"Usernames which are not obviously inappropriate, but which may fit the criteria listed above should not be immediately blocked. The issue should be discussed with the account's creator, who may not be familiar with the username policy."

And have you been defending it? Would you actually return to your previous justifications, such as that it's okay to block because you can't spell it, or that you were protecting AAAAAAAAAA42 from being impersonated? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is obviously inappropriate. Perhaps that is where we differ. And for the record, I never blatantly said I couldn't spell it, nor said I only blocked it to "protect it some being impersonated". Jmlk17 08:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How about the other part? I'll say it again: "A confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires an immediate block without at least an attempt at substantive discussion." rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, seems to be a gray area. AAAAAAAAAA42 is "confusing", but also "inappropriate", so it falls into both areas. Jmlk17 08:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Enlighten me. What's inappropriate about it? For that matter, what's obviously inappropriate about it, which is what your defense hinges on? If it was obvious to newbies that repeating a letter was an offense that would get them blocked, we wouldn't have good faith users creating these names and being surprised at the block. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Read our thread. I've explained it above. You're basing this off of what, one user? Ggggggggggggggg12? Because Ggggggggggggggg12 might have become a good editor? It's more than obvious I am not the only admin who interprets WP:U that way, probably the majority do. AAAAAAAAAA42 might be appropriate for some crap forum elsewhere, where one admin watches a few boards, but I like to pretend Wikipedia stands for something else, something slightly credible at times, and it is not appropriate here. Jmlk17 09:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am basing this off of many users and lots of experience with helping newbies, but thanks for trivializing my effort. You've taken it as an axiom that certain names you don't like are "obviously inappropriate" to everyone and danced around that for a while. It's not going to be worth it for me to press you on your dubious appeal to the silent majority. Let me just point out that others have brought up exactly this issue up at the top of your talk page, and instead of taking any of what they said to heart you actually dared them to escalate it.

You have a problem with biting newbies, and you can't recognize it for what it is. I would prefer if you stayed away from using your admin powers in areas that involve newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So "TurdFergeson" is alright now too eh? Dude, I think you have a weird idea of acceptable usernames. As for your preference of what I do with my tools and how I feel about that... I'm not sure if it's the correct place to send you, but I think it is. Jmlk17 09:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Have fun being Wikipedia's personal bouncer, enforcing your dress code on the newbies, unbound by policy or good faith. Try not to place any blocks that are too controversial, and we may not have to have this kind of discussion again. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack... much obliged, and I hope it made you feel better about not getting your way. I'm sorry I don't conform to a sanitized go-by-the-books 101% of the time editor-style, but that's not my style. Actually, fuck that, I'm not sorry. I do quite a lot of good around here, and I personally don't go around talking down to other admins. Next time you come to my talk page, you might want to take a breath and not leave a last-word lecture. But hey, that's just my suggestion, and who am I, but "Wikipedia's personal bouncer". Come on, you could have come up with a better one man. Oh well. :) Thanks! Jmlk17 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Despite just about every Wikipedian instinct telling me I just need to stop having this conversation already, you have rightly drawn attention to my crappy exit from the conversation. There's that one part left saying "wait wait, you could actually kind of resolve this".)

It's interesting. Now that you've said that you're not exactly going "by the books" here, it makes this situation seem considerably more reasonable to me. See, I'm a fan of IAR in general. You just have to know that you're doing it, and know why.

It's clear you've got a reason why. I don't like it -- it seems to put aesthetics over AGF -- but it's a reason, and that's enough to make this a difference of opinion instead of a WTF failure to communicate. It seemed at some point that your argument was based on "the book", leaving me to conclude that our assumptions about what words meant were just so different that communication was becoming impossible. But choosing to not go by the book because you find the issue important -- I can see the sense in that, even from the opposite side of the issue.

I know you do good things for Wikipedia. Keep doing them. The area where we differ significantly doesn't have to be everything. And so I apologize for the way I reacted to your previous couple of statements.

Have a good... well, whatever time of day it is for you. Why am I still awake? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In case you think this is just you and Rspeer, I have to agree that blocking people for their allegedly-confusing usernames is unnecessary and a bad idea. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Never thought it was. Jmlk17 07:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Combat Hapkido

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Combat Hapkido. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I've entered a request for the Combat Hapkido Article to be restored. It meets the Wikipedia requirement of Notability by being an Organization that has many verifiable citations that appear in printed media, and video media, along with others. This Organization is International, and is Widely known in the Martial Arts Community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnusRBHunter (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Jonathan Rosenthal" ‎ (A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance)

You deleted Jonathan Rosenthal ‎as csd-a7. I found a reference which you might want to add to the story, from the Toronto Sun, Sunday, April 6, 2008. http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Bonokoski_Mark/2008/04/06/5208836-sun.php --Eastmain (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Could you also restore the history of the article by the same name deleted at 06:00, 23 March 2006 by Flowerparty (talk · contribs · count). --Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The older version is just vandalism, so I have restored the latest. :) Jmlk17 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs

You are consistently beating me to the punch with editing on the page! You are doing a great job with this, keep up the good work!

Split (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I'm surprised actually! I've rarely been able to get those edits in. Thanks for the compliment, and I'm sure I'll see you at the page. :) Jmlk17 03:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course! It's good to see consistent updates. I am still slightly new to editing - sorry I messed up the formatting on the scores. Only after I edited did I realize I had done it wrong. Thanks for fixing it!

Split (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all my friend. Welcome! :) Jmlk17 03:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

David Figueroa-Ortiz

I was about to remove the speedy tag for this when you deleted it. I think that his previous professorship at princeton makes for a claim to notability, and I probably can find enough to add to the article to hold up at AfD. so would you please restore it. DGG (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure... done. Best of luck! :) Jmlk17 04:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Dan Youra

Please unprotect and re-instate my wiki on Dan Youra I am the original creator of the article and was very new to Wikipedia when I first wrote this article. I had used some bio info I found on one of his websites which was considered blatant advertising. I am formally requesting the opportunity to redo this article so that I may prove the notability of Dan Youra. within the rules of the Wikipedia community. comment added by Jwsnyder101 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 April 2008

Additional references for Dan Youra

I found the following reference for Dan Youra, which may help to establish notability: http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20071226/NEWS/712260305 Peninsula promoter has innovative takes on tourism. By Jennifer Jackson, Peninsula Daily News

As well, there are a number of other articles at Google News achive which could be helpful. Please consider restoring the article and adding these references. --Eastmain (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored. Thank you for the research. :) Jmlk17 05:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

more deletes

Sanjaynagar if it dosn't get caught by the time you get there,--Jakezing (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Masonic abbreviations

I see that you have deleted Masonic abbreviations with "(G12: Blatant copyright infringement)". Could you restore it? It was based on the work of Albert Mackey who died in 1881. Please leave a note in my Talk page when you answer. --Error (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would my friend, but as it was deleted per copyright issues, a complete rewrite would need to be in order. Jmlk17 02:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

But I think that the copyright issues were invalid, since the source is in the public domain. In that case, a rewrite would not be needed. Obviously, I can't check now, but I think that the article had a reference to Mackey's encyclopedia. If not, I think that it should be fairly similar to the content in this PDF from 1914. Wouldn't that be acceptable? --Error (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Rox3n

This band should not have been deleted from wikipedia. They are a very famous band in both Pakistan and India. They contributed songs to the first ever India-Pakistan joint movie production. This article might not be receiving much attention because the name is actually Roxen. Please get this band back up onto wikipedia.

WaleedDa1 (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you establish notability through good, third party sources? Jmlk17 04:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope these will be enough to establish notability:

[http://www.eglamsham.com/roxen.htm http://www.pakmanzil.com/revamped/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=87 http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/news/mustafa-awarapan-050707.html http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/news/pakistan-awarapan-release-040707.html]

WaleedDa1 (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so... would you like me to restore it to your personal sandbox? Jmlk17 06:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why can't it be restored back onto wikipedia? WaleedDa1 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As it was an expired WP:PROD deletion, I would suggest heading to deletion review and making your request there please. Jmlk17 02:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and restore it to my personal sandbox WaleedDa1 (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. You may find it here. Jmlk17 05:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's RfA

Jmlk17...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Cab

Hey i was wondering why you deleted the Article on "The Cab" a band that DOES have signifigance becuase they just released a new album and they are very popular. If you wouldnt mind i would enjoy having an article on them on Wikipedia. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolineeeexoxo (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Constant reverts from IP addresses on article "Copt"

Sorry about putting yet another thing on your plate, but I think your capable of helping me out of this one also.

This article has been constantly reverted by more than one IP address. One of them even blanked out a section. Another one, 129.85.55.197, constantly rv's the article over the lines of the Coptic flag. Personally, I'm not a real supporter of this flag as it is not recognized by the Coptic Church, however, I strongly feel that these edits are too biased — against WP:NPOV Policy.

Just for the heads up, this article has already had similar incidents, so you might want to consider disabling edits from IP's temporarily.

Thanks,

• ~ Troy (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... I'll look into it. If it gets too crazy, then protection(s) may be in order. Jmlk17 06:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher's RfA

Tbh, I'm curious why. But I'm curious all the time, so respond or not as you see fit. Dorftrottel (troll) 09:49, May 2, 2008

Mantis Evar Page

I'm still in the process of adding information to this page but it has been deleted. Can you wait until I add all the necessary information before you decide to delete it? Ryan.rogalski (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask how you are going to establish notability? Jmlk17 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to post a list of album credits which you can see here http://www.indabamusic.com/people/mantis

If working with Pat Martino, Joey Defrancesco, and Chucho Valdes and having an album dedicated to you by Erik Truffaz on Blue Note Records doesn't equate to notability in the Jazz community then I don't know what does.Ryan.rogalski (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

btw the notability of the album "Mantis" is confirmed on Erik Truffaz' wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Truffaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan.rogalski (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree... restored. :) Jmlk17 03:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Decline

Yes, your far to civil :) It a thing that happens when I open a page for editing and then you save a page already open and somehow it doesn't edit conflict on my end when I then save. It happened last month at an Arbcom when one guy replaced all of another guy's votes the same way. Since you did decline first, I've reverted to your version. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, gotta love that! As for being civil, I don't think I've ever been called "too civil" in my entirety here. :P Jmlk17 03:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming Standards

Bot accounts are supposed to have BOT in the name, this is not a violation of WP account naming standards. --Lemmey talk 04:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I know... but has your bot been approved? Jmlk17 04:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As this is a non-malicious, constructive bot that conforms to all regular standards, you have blocked for the wrong reason. --Lemmey talk 04:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question... has your bot been approved? Jmlk17 04:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Allow me: No, it hasn't, so the block reason is irrelevant. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The block reason is in violation of policy. Therefore block reason should be blocked using TW. --Lemmey talk 05:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Jmlk17 05:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

ice nine kills

i think you might have made a mistake in deleting ice nine kills.......i was just about to send it to AfD....can you .......un-delete it until they're done with it ? thanks Guitardude3600 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jmlk17 22:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot Policy

Bot Policy does not require BAG approval for bots operating in semi mode. --Lemmey talk 06:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it does... could you show me where you see that? Jmlk17 06:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Question_regarding_the_need_of_bot_approval and [6] bottom of the page there, that looks familiar.--Lemmey talk 06:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It does look like I am wrong, but my understanding of the bot policy isn't that great. If you could do me a big favor and add an unblock request with those diffs on the bot's talkpage, I'd be appreciative. :) Jmlk17 06:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would but there is no notice of the current block there. NM the template is smarter than me, its there now. --Lemmey talk 06:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Children Act 1978

Why have you reverted to the weak version of the Protection of Children Act article, before protecting it? Protections are expected to be without prejudice, yet you have reverted without explanation, before protecting. Do you genuinely believe that a news article is more reliable than the actual court documents? 82.146.60.243 (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe anything in regards to the article. I never visit it, nor pay any attention to it. Jmlk17 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you briefly review the edits and reconsider your decision to "protect" the page? The request for page protection was a malicious attempt to win an edit war. The use of Tor nodes isn't indicative of trolling or disruption in this case, it's merely a safer way of editing a topic which most people don't want their identities associated with. 82.253.73.82 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

After a quick perusal of the edit history, I am inclined to agree with you. But (and I hope you understand), I don't want to seem as if I have a conflict of interest nor any hand in the editing issues. If you would be so kind, could you file an unprotection request at WP:RFPP? That way, another neutral admin can easily and quickly review the protection. My best regards. Jmlk17 03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kobkobkob#Hey now.

I have already warned him for this, just to let you know. He seems to have got the message now. Have a pleasant evening! :) asenine ^{say what?} 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right on, thank you. :) Jmlk17 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for semi protecting the Chantal Claret page, we are looking for full protection from NEON WHITE who has for some reason has a personal vendetta against the page and whenever anyone tries to correct him/her he accuses them of sockpuppetry, which is not the case. He left the page alone for a few months and all was well, but not he is back with a vengeance and it is very unfortunate. But thank you and any other help you can provide would be very much apprieciated! y FantasticBore (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)fantasticbore, formerly SignOfThe TimesFantasticBore (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the page I reported. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What can I do to improve the Highwinds Network Group article

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I will thank you in advance for your patience. I am trying to learn all of the rules, both documented and understood in the Wikipedia community. I recently created a new article called Highwinds Network Group. The reason I wrote this article is because I noticed that in a separate article called Content Distribution Network, several companies that offer CDN services were listed, but Highwinds was not. Highwinds has one of the largest, most established networks, and they recently announced a $55 million round of equity financing. I found them to be very significant and important in this growing industry. However, when added to that article, they kept being taken down. So I felt it might help to create a Wikipedia article about Highwinds to link to from that article. My first attempt to create a Wikipedia article was flagged for deletion, but I continued to edit the page...taking out unnecessary content, adding references to published articles that list the prominent CDNs, adding links to established company websites that list Highwinds as a partner (such as Adobe and Microsoft), and links to industry blogs discussing Highwinds. I felt like I was doing the right thing. However, a second time the article was flagged for deletion. This time I went in and really made sure that the content mirrored the articles written about each of the other CDN providers listed on the Content Delivery Network page. I figured this way I was being fair, unbiased, and informative. Today I see that the article was taken down. I believe that you are the one who made that decision. I respect that you felt it should be taken down, however I do not understand why. Can you please share with me what I need to do in order to have the Highwinds Network Group article replaced? Thank you for your response. Wjmoore (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello my friend, and welcome! Sorry your first effort at an article isn't going so well right now, but let's try and remedy that. I'm glad you are ready and willing to write the article, but if I may suggest, please read our notability guidelines on companies, groups, clubs, etc. The important thing is to be able to show that the company is notable, especially using good, solid third-party sources. Hope this helps! :) Jmlk17 03:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your help please...

The deletion log shows you deleted the article Abdul Ghaffar (Chemist).

Could you please point me to the discussion where the A7 concern was first raised? Geo Swan (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course my friend. I see when you created the page, another editor tagged it for deletion as a non-notable biography about an hour later. More than another hour later, I deleted the article. If you like, I can easily restore it to your personal sandbox, or we can discuss what you would like to do from here. Jmlk17 03:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw the article was still in the google cache. I didn't recognize it as my work. Yes, I wouldn't mind you userifying it to User:Geo Swan/Review/Abdul Gharrar (Chemist). Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Logta

Logta has been deleted several times. This portal is visited by thousands of users daily and we want Logta's presence on wikipedia. Please suggest why this article gets deleted continously. Please advice what content should we place in the article to avoid deletion Isimplegeek (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly cannot suggest much, if anything, as the article fails our notability guidelines. Jmlk17 07:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Google Me: The Movie"

Hello,

I saw on the deletion log that you deleted the entry Google Me: the Movie.

I'm not sure why the article was deleted. I (who wrote it) represent the producers of the film and everything in the article was truthful and inoffensive.

If you'd like to check the legitimacy of the film, please see the website: www.googlemethemovie.com, the imdb page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1176730/, and you may watch the film on youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=SSAloy8LV7E. In addition, you may check out the website of the production company which produced it: theassociation.tv.

Please let me know what I can do so that the article can be reinstated. In addition, I'd like to rename the article to Google Me (loosing "the Movie" part)-- is this possible even though there is already a (unrelated) entry with the same name?

Thank you very much for your help! Lara thejimkilleenproject@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlemethemovie (talk • contribs) 18:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted due to a lack of notability. If you can show/prove how the film is notable, I will be happy to restore it. :) Jmlk17 18:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to me. Maybe posting reviews/news articles will help to prove notability? Here are a bunch from external sources: http://vivianatmerdock.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/movie-google-me/ http://oldschoolreviews.com/rev_2000/google.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081201315.html http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/04/google-me-debuts-on-youtube.html http://www.news.com/8301-13772_3-9924891-52.html?tag=bl http://www.lariat.org/AtTheMovies/new/googleme.html http://www.reelingreviews.com/googleme.htm

Here is a link to most of our editorial coverage on our publicist's page, including an exert from the NY Post: http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=12710466&albumID=1856526

In addition, please us check out and read viewer reviews on: IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1176730/ Rotten Tomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/google_me/ YouTube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=SSAloy8LV7E

We have over 35,000 views on youtube and are currently trying to process a huge amount of dvd orders. Jim, the filmmaker, has been interviewed numerous times for radio, internet, print and television news sources (such as Washington Post, LA Times, NPR, Good Morning America, Last Call with Carson Daily, Detroit Free Press, CNET and many more). We are currently in talks with distributors.

Please let me know if I can provide any more information. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlemethemovie (talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am still not so sure my friend, and must apologize, as I may be online erratically for a bit. If I may suggest a deletion review, this issue can probably be resolved rather quickly. Jmlk17 05:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I did put it up on Deletion Review. ==Deletion review for Google Me: The Movie== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Google Me: The Movie. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Googlemethemovie (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Did you speedy it or was it a ProD? I couldn't tell from the deletion log. In either case, I vote to list it for a full AfD debate. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Jmlk17, I wanted to ask about a RPP that you recently turned down. With all due respect (and you are an editor I respect, that's no empty phrase :)), I'd like to ask you to reconsider. A look at the page history shows nearly all of the recent edits coming from IPs, recently registered users or users with very few edits, and all of these have been reverted. I certainly think that the level of vandalism meets Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection, especially considering the type of vandalism being committed - that is, negative POV-pushing in a BLP. I'll also echo my concerns that one of the IP vandals quite likely is an employee of a California college, and therefore this situation has the potential to turn real ugly (an academic making negative edits to the article of probably the best known and most revered American historian = bad medicine). Then again, perhaps I'm too far in the forest to see the trees. Whatever your decision, I trust your judgment. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 19:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there faithless! Good to hear from you! I am quite reluctant to protect the page, not so much because of vandalism issues, but the relative lack of much editing recently. There are only a couple of edits a day, and haven't been any in the past 3 days or so. I prefer to protect pages that are under assault by vandalism or other issues, rather than slow-term or random issues. If you disagree (and of course anyone is more than welcome to with any decision/edit I do, admin or not), I am more than willing to discuss the issue with you and come to an amiable conclusion my friend... the respect issue goes both ways here of course. I hope this helps, and good to hear from you as always! :) Jmlk17 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your protection on this page! :) Acalamari 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Sabbat Worlds Crusade

Hi, you deleted an article that I was still working on, as it was my first post, not amazingly done. However, it is of relative importance to the game, and to the Gaunts Ghosts series. I would request that you restore it, and I will improve it and make it better. thanks, Captain0loken (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Request unprotection of Solar power (now called Solar energy)

This page has been under the wing of an SPA practically forever, someone who constantly thrashes and re-thrashes the solar energy article, and refuses to listen to consensus, for example insisting on replacing the consensus "most" with an artificial and unsupported "99.9%" in the lead. The only control is to allow people such as myself to edit the page. And no I have no interest in registering an account. They took a blessed wikibreak for about three months, occasionally towards the end lurking but not editing, but now they are back, and as bad as ever. When they did come back they pulled up a version of the article from October 17 to restore some of their favorite images. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you could also ban them from editing that one article for six months or so that would also be helpful. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is also patently obvious that the editor who requested protection[7] did so for the sole purpose of committing a 3RR violation (actually their 5th revert - see WP:3RR noticeboard) and not getting it reverted. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

hittman band deletion.

Hello. My name is dirk kennedy singer for the band HITTMAN. I requesting that you please restore the page you deleted. Hittman was/ is a notable band for the last 20 years. we released 2 records on the spv label sold over a half million cd's and toured extensively.

we are listed in the all music guide and in over 100 books about heavy metal. we were on the cover of kerrang, metal forces, rock hard, burn and metal edge magazine.

although we have been dormant for a decade we still sell records and have a loyal fan base.

we have announced a co-headlining show at the "keep it true" 12 festival in germany next year on april 25th 2009 and have a retrospective cd planned for release in 2008.

the page was a great tool for fans looking for more information about the band.

I hope you will consider the request!

thanks Dirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.222.139 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to assert notability? Jmlk17 00:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Nicholas-at-Wade

Hello.

Thanks for adding semi-protection to this page following a spate of recent vandalism. I live here and was responsible for the last genuine major edit some time ago giving good information about the village.

I have since reverted the page to this edit (post-typo correction) as all information added since was defamatory, incorrect, or plain vandalism. I tried editing it back but so much was vandalised it was easier to revert.

Please continue to watch this page if you can and I will do the same. Thanks again Stnickvillager (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit - Can you also have a look at Monkton, Kent. The same user who vandalised the St. Nicholas-at-Wade page has set up a redirect to Monkton, Thanet. This is inappropriate for the local area as Kent does not have any other Monktons (as opposed to Minster where there are two). I don't know how to revert this.

Can you also see what can be done about the vandal - username is hamletpride. Thanks Stnickvillager (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit - strikethrough of self-retracted text

Stroppy

Why did you delete this page please? 'Stroppy' is a common slang word in the UK even if it is unknown in the USA. I thought it was a small if useful contribution to Wiki. Regards.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the default option, when deleting a page that is transwikied, is to replace it with boilerplate text that appears in the instructions, instead of deleting the page entirely. What do you think? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association

Hello! Can you please reply a querry related to your deletion of the page Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association, here. Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rillieux what?

Why this? Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Barrio Debajo =

Why did you delate this article??? It's a (bad) joke... Are you paid to delete all the little wikipedia articles ??? --Palmer73 (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

hittman sources

http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=1450 http://www.rockdetector.com/artist,4154.sm http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fnfpxqy5ld6e http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/bio/index.jsp?JSESSIONID=T7mgHbGGlMxTsZ12p8xybjN68G9q9Ys9pYhQNBnKLmKtVJ4Lzgxv!-572514030&&pid=70452

http://spv.de/eng/katalog.html as you can see our second record is still in print.

we are also co-headlining the keep it true festival next year in germany.

thanks very much

dirk kennedy 69.203.83.162 (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Gamma Beta

I've tried to re edit this page and I don't see the issue why it was place for deletion. Could you please help me understand the situation?hawee talk

A lack of notability. Also per a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gamma_Beta. Jmlk17 19:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Would this be enough for notability? http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2005/04/07/University/ShackAThon.Event.To.Raise.Awareness.About.Poverty-915889.shtml hawee talk 12:01 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No honestly. The student newspaper of a school isn't exactly anything able to show notability. Jmlk17 06:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the student newspaper for The University of Texas at Austin, which is a pretty big school. There are other organizations that have wiki articles and the only thing they have notable is the exact same student newspaper. I'll continue to look for more sources of notability but I believe that this one source is pretty notable. The university website should also be considered a notable source since it's not the easiest thing to become a recognized fraternity on campus. Sorry to bother about the issue but you do seem to know a lot about this and i'm fairly new to wiki and trying to learn how I may be able to create this article. hawee talk —Preceding comment was added at 00:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but a student newspaper of a school (no matter what size of the institution) does not exactly assert notability. There are countless clubs and groups at the hundreds of institutes of higher education throughout the United States, as well as the rest of the world. I would suggest reading through WP:GROUP to find out the details of our notability guidelines. Jmlk17 05:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jmlk17, Sorry to bother you again but what's the difference between Gamma Beta and Sigma Phi Omega. That organization has no notable source but is still able to have a article. Its espcially difficult to find any articles of notability for my organization since we're still very young. hawee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.17.219 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me with getting this article to pass?

Deletion review for graphalloy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of graphalloy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I would like to work on this page again to resolve the issue of importance Ebenwalker (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy

I have responded to a unregistered users request at WP:RFPU after appearing to not receive a response to page unprotection here; looking at your replies to previous unprotection requests I assumed you are happy to have an independent admin review of the protection. I hence reviewed it and my decision can be found at [8]. Please let me know if you have any comments or concerns about this. Thanks. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Winter of Apokalypse

Could you please restore the above. There is no way that band is non notable. Note the two links to allmusic and the reviews and the fact that they are signed to Moribund Records. Undeath (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Moral decay (sociology) - why delete it?

Why are you deleting a perfectly good subject just because "No sources since March 2007, Extremely low content"

If a topic is concisely defined and it is linked to by other wiki pages, I can not see a reason for deleting it just because it is not updated. It is not all subjects that change that fast over time, and you actually destroy the meaning of other wiki pages when you just delete a page because YOU think it has no value.

Who made you King of information to decide such things?

There is plenty of pages to delete out there due to vandalism etc. why don't you spend your time there instead of just deleting what you think is not valuable information. What is not valuable to you might be valuable to others. As long as the information is correct and verifiable it deserves to be in Wikipedia.

90.185.22.242 (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008i agree!!! he also deleted enter pashawari's wikipedia for a bad reason!!89.240.43.33 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Enter Pashawari Deletion (Why?)

ENTER PASHAWARI ARE AMAZING HOW DARE YOU DELETE THEM
ALLAH WILL GET YOU BACK FOR THIS

BRC & privacy concerns

Hey Jmlk, would you mind dropping in your opinion here? Thanks. GlassCobra 01:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

List of religious populations

FYI, I noticed List of religious populations, which you had protected in February, was still protected. There seemed to be little activity on the talk page to suggest that there was still a dispute that would lead to edit warring, so I went ahead and removed it. Please feel free to re-add it if needed. --B (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you deleted Opportunity Asset Management?

I do not see why you deleted this page. Could you please explain me your reasons? Many tks. Opportunity1 (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Pariah Burke

Pariah Burke, which you deleted on an expired prod [9], has been recreated, self-admittedly by the subject himself, and is now up for AfD. Subject has been warned for AUTO & COI. Qworty (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Blue World

I see that you have deleted a novel by this name. Would this be the book by Jack Vance or by somebody else? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Jmlk17 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Bernstein2291 (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Coptic Language

Hello, Jmlk17. Sorry for putting a lot on your plate, but this seems to be quite urgent. The article, found here, is being constantly reverted before we have even reached a consensus on its discussion page. I've have tried to at least convince the user, but I've had no luck thus far. The discussion can be found here. Thank-you! ~ Troy (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)