Talk:Aja (album)

message: Hey this is cool. Someone should incorporate this. I have school tomorrow I can't. {{citewebMDhtdtppml.a_a}{
///www.LexisNexis.com/2011/07/how-steely-dan-got-wayne-shorter.html   | title = How Steely Dan Got Wayne Shorter | work = Jazz Wax| date = 2011-07-15 | first = Marc | last = Myers }} Burnedfaceless (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wayne Shorter

message: The article on Sayoko Yamaguchi says that she was the person pictured on the cover, photographed by Hideki Fujii.  Should this be added? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings - thanks for that information and the links. If it can be referenced from a reliable source, then it can be added to this article. The fact that it is mentioned - and even highlighted - on Yamaguchi's article page isn't enough because it should also be referenced there. No one doubts the truth of it, it just has to be referenced according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover

message: I haven't missed a football game at the University of Alabama in over 15 years, and I've yet to hear Alabama play the song as a fight song.  Anyone else want to stand with me to dispute this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.119.197 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fight Song? 

message: While I certainly won't dispute the excellence of this record or the claim that it is ambitious, I'm not so sure I'd go so far to say its their most sophisticated. Is this really the common critical opinion? Any thoughts? User:Havardj 22:30, 8 January 2006‎ UTC
:How about a quote from the official Steely Dan web site?
:From... 
:
:(above quote appears to lack copyright)
:Personally, I would tend to agree.  Watch the interviews with Fagen and Becker in VH1's Classic Album series, and when you realize what went into this work, you'll agree, too. 71.164.41.126 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Most sophisticated?

message: The article mentions a $600 reward for the return of the multi-track master tapes of the title track. This seems oddly small. The source - which is a transcription of the liner notes - renders this as "$600.00". Can anyone with an original copy of the reissued CD confirm that this isn't a typo for $60,000? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have a source for this info, but I would imagine (being familiar with Becker & Fagen's sense of humor) that the small amount was intentional and meant to be self-deprecating. Patricia Meadows (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six hundred dollars 

message: Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on  to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, preferably by using the  template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
* 
--CactusBot (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011 

message: The article says that the SACD version was canceled, but on eBay there are some Japaneese SACDs, released June 30, 2010.  Is that correct?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SACD? 

message: Why do we have it as a soft j sound when Fagen is clearly using the hard j in the title track? Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the documentary Classic Albums: Steely Dan - Aja (2000) Donald Fagen says the name comes from a Korean woman who married the brother of a high-school friend of his...Perhaps that's the way the woman pronounces her own name.Minusminority (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title pronunciation 

message: I say no, but an editor reverted my removal of the Wikiproject Jazz template with the reason, "there are connections to jazz littered throughout the article, and to the topic" Now that's true. There are "connections". But "connections" to jazz doesn't make something identical to jazz, anymore than jazzercise has anything to do with jazz because it has the word "jazz" in it. Queen made an album called Jazz that had no jazz on it. I've been listening to Steely Dan (and reading about it) for a long time, longer than many of you have been alive. A couple weeks ago I finished reading the biography of Steely Dan by Brian Sweet. Walter Becker and Donald Fagen, the members of Steely Dan, always denied that they were a jazz band or that there were making jazz albums. They called themselves a rock band and campaigned to get themselves into the Rock and Roll of Fame, which happened. They are jazz fans. They did admit to sneaking jazz chords into their songs and of hiring jazz musicians for their albums. But this is different from recording a jazz album. Becker and Fagen did produce a jazz album, Apogee, for Warne Marsh and Pete Christlieb. I encourage people to listen to real jazz albums and compare them to Steely Dan. If you click my username, you'll see a list of jazz books. We do everyone a disservice if we continue to perpetuate the fraud that Steely Dan was a jazz band that made jazz albums, contrary to the repeated claims by Becker and Fagen. If we are not going to listen to the band members themselves, who are we listening to? Who knows better than they do? No one. The members of Wikiproject Jazz are free to decide what albums or musicians to include in Wikiproject Jazz. Let's restrict it to jazz. That's the whole point of the project.–Vmavanti (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoa, whoa. Puritanical? Easy on the personal attacks, okay? I'm not arguing for purity. Can you show me where I did? I am arguing for a proper understanding of jazz. I think you would be surprised at some of the albums and musicians that are in Wikiproject Jazz; many people would find it absurd to call some of them jazz. So I'm dealing with a broad definition already. I have had this argument many times on Wikipedia. When people say to me "You are narrow minded" what they really mean is "You should see things my way". But they never have good arguments about why. There are over 25,000 articles in Wikiproject Jazz. You may have missed the point of my comparisons. My point was something can contain the word jazz and in your words "connected" to it without being classified as a jazz. An album can be 80 percent rock and 20 percent jazz, but a music critic or journalist will create the term "jazz rock" and smash the two together. That doesn't make it jazz. You have not addressed the particulars of my points. Calling me names, aside from being against the rules, doesn't work as an argument. When you point the finger at someone else, you have four fingers pointing back at yourself. If you really believe this is a jazz album, contrary to what Becker and Fagen themselves have said, you don't know what jazz is. But you can learn.–Vmavanti (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  "jazz is in the conversation" Talking about jazz doesn't make something jazz. That's obvious.–Vmavanti (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a personal attack. And your response is still puritanical. Your point is irrelevant, and you have not addressed my citation of the project-banner guideline. So I'll highlight it for you again:  This is the only point that matters, unless you can find something in the guidelines that'll support your position. Dan56 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is calling someone puritanical a compliment? Of course not. So it must be an insult, right? More to the point, please address the many points I have made. I have been patient and tolerant with you and I respectfully request the same courtesy. I have written a lot, but you have addressed almost none of it, and when you have addressed the subject you haven't done much better than "Nuh uh no it isn't". Come on, man. Don't drag this out. It's really very simple.Vmavanti (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is more of an observation than an insult or a compliment, unlike your reasoning, which insults my intelligence. Another observation: being patronizing, or projecting your insecurities about content discussion onto me, will not expedite your desired change. Your comments are way too long, complicated (rather than "simple"), and rely more on anecdotal or personal observation rather than specific Wikipedia guidelines or policy, which only I've cited. I'm sorry I am not responding the way you want me to, seeing it your way, or acquiescing to something I don't agree with. If you want your change to be enforced without my objection getting in the way, perhaps you should see a third opinion or an RfC. Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You misunderstood what "jazz related" means. In Wikiproject Jazz "jazz related" refers not to genres of music but to articles about subjects other than people and albums. That's why there are articles about venues like Carnegie Hall, record labels such as Columbia and Sony, instruments like trombone and saxophone, festivals, bars, clubs, restaurants. That is what "jazz related" means. Other kinds of articles. My reasoning isn't an insult unless you are fundamentally against changing your mind, your habits, and learning something new. Show me where my reason is faulty. Don't just make an assertion or claim without backing it up. This isn't about winning. It's about accuracy. For example, why you do think it's OK to ignore what Becker and Fagen say about their own music? That is a very important point. If we are going to have a debate, you must address the points I made, otherwise it's one person gives a speech, then another gives a speech. That's not debate or discussion. That's a political campaign.Vmavanti (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be rely on third-party sources, and Steely Dan is not a third-party? Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're the only one giving speeches and personal essays, not having once cited a guideline or policy to back up your point. I don't see anything at WP:JAZZ that says what you are saying. Central point of using a talk page, from WP:TALK:  No one is obligated to spend energy and time engaging your points if they are baseless. Dan56 (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither of us is obligated to be swayed by the other. It is normal for two editors in a content dispute to reach a stalemate. That is why dispute resolution alternatives like third opinion and RFC exist. Dan56 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a policy against refusing to discuss. I have seen that many times on WP when people are unable to answer my questions. They either say nothing or they change the subject. That is not honest or civil debate. It strikes me as the height of arrogance to presume to know better than Becker and Fagen how to describe their music when they are the ones who wrote it, recorded it, and performed it. That's obvious. We do rely on primary sources sometimes, as when we use a musician's official site. We can use the official site for basic facts as long as we don't include promotional material. So dismissing the primary source in this case is against policy. Regardless, you will find few or no third-party sources that say "Steely Dan is a jazz band" or "Aja is a jazz album", which presumably is the argument you are making.Vmavanti (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have discussed. I am not dismissing any source. I am giving equal weight to third-party sources, which you do not want to do, which is against policy. (WP:INDEPENDENT:  No one but you -- no policy or guideline -- advocates for restricting the use of the WP:JAZZ project banner on articles that cover recordings that in your mind are considered only jazz. Don't tell me I misunderstand the meaning of the word "related" when you seem to have a competence problem understanding you have to argue points with a basis in (and citation of) guidelines and policy that can be referred to. Dan56 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

text:  I have neither given a speech nor written an essay, so I reject those accusations. I consider the use of exaggeration and insults contrary to Wikipedia policy and inconsistent with mature, rational debate.Vmavanti (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speech. Dan56 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go through WP:Third opinion or WP:RFC, and see what impartial editors think. Dan56 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Dan, did you perhaps mean purist above (and not puritanical)? I agree that this album can belong to the Wikipedia Project Jazz, and that it doesn't mean we're saying Aja is a jazz album. I also think this discussion got started on the wrong foot, and I hope it's due to writing a different word than intended. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's too late to make nice; he has completely turned me off with his incessant, myopic bloviating, anal rigidity and condescending, hypocritical remarks from the get-go, all of which I suspect are products of his obsession with removing a superficial project banner (that seems incredibly precious to him) and have blinded him from comprehending the basics of guidelines and policy-based arguments; one simply should not argue in the manner he has; it is unreadable and off-putting. I'm glad I'm not alone anymore to be driven crazy by his behavior, but I have no more patience for him on this matter. Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Psychologists call this projection. You are lucky I haven't referred you to an administrator for all the times you have insulted me. I feel sorry for your inability to address this subject. Good luck, mate. You'll need it. If you are interested in learning about jazz, feel free to click on my username. Contrary to your assertion, I have not "turned you off". If you want to learn, I'm here to help.Vmavanti (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the simplest, most obvious sense, Wikiproject Jazz is about jazz. Hence the name. I don't know how to make that clearer. EddieHugh made clear on the Wikiproject Jazz page that he doesn't want to favor one kind of jazz over another. That's why there are articles in the project about dixieland, swing, bebop, and avant-garde. I have worked on all of them. But the subject is still jazz, defined very very broadly. Is that determination subjective? To some degree, yes. But if lines were not drawn, decisions couldn't be made, and nothing would ever get accomplished. If you want to help, there is plenty to do. Complaining doesn't help. Always things your way doesn't help.Vmavanti (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  A response was given by an admin at  for anyone who wants to read it. The conclusion was "you are both at fault", which of course I disagree with (for the most part), though I respect the person who gave it. I'm dropping my participation in this article. Wikipedia is the loser here, not me.Vmavanti (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem you complained about there was not so much this article as all the other ones where he objected to you removing the jazz project tags.  Please consider my question above: what's the downside in leaving the tags?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tags aren't merely decoration. They collect information, and the information goes somewhere, such as to the Cleanup Listing. Every Tuesday the Cleanup Listing for Wikiproject Jazz is released. This listing contains articles which need work. As of this writing, nearly 4000 need work. A lot of work. Most of the others, if not all the others, need some kind of work. Who is going to do it? Santa Claus? The fictional Good Samaritan? God? The listing grows every day despite the efforts of a small group of people playing whack a mole. For most of the project's life, two of us have done most of the work. For all the people who thoughtlessly add tags because it's fun, or because they are bored, or because they have OCD, or because they are know-it-alls, whatever the reason, there are two people on Earth who actually do the real work of improving the articles, and a handful of others here and there who I'm grateful for. There are always consequences, right? Adults should have learned that by now. The internet encourages thoughtlessness. When I try to debate people, I find I'm talking to someone who is incapable of debate and of seeing past their noses.Vmavanti (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Chaw chaw.Vmavanti (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this album be in Wikiproject Jazz? 

message: I would never use an offensive term like "yacht rock." Not many people do. Who does? Losers who need to tear people down to build up their own fragile egos. Narcissistic, would-be know-it-alls who prefer sarcasm to fact, the kind of people Wikipedia attracts like a magnet. You can find reliable sources using this term. So what? You can find reliable sources making mistakes every day. In America, we have a tradition of common sense that supercedes submission to authority. But it's impossible to make the argument for thinking for yourself among people who don't know how to think for themselves, people who are drawn to Wikipedia because they believe it means, "I will do your thinking for you", I will pick winners and losers for you, I will tell you what's what. This paternalism isn't merely un-American, it has no place in a reference work which claims to revere facts above all. I have argued about this article in the past, without success. The bully, the idiot, and the lunatic usually win out in the end.Vmavanti (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  This comment manages to both dumb and offensive. Wikipedia is an American creation. Remember that.Vmavanti (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  In all your hostility and insults, you missed the point.Vmavanti (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect you won't be editing Wikipedia for much longer. Bye-ya.Vmavanti (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Let us all now pause to reflect, turn to each other and paraphrase the good word of Yacht King Mellencamp, who (more or less) said:  InedibleHulk (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Attempting to be clever takes precedence over reality again, eh limey? If you had put one second of analysis into the situation, you would know Dan cares nothing for guidelines. If there is a problem with authority, it's his hangup, not mine. Your dismissive remarks prove what's wrong with this dismissive term. But you know, all things come to an end.Vmavanti (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Canadian, ya presumptuous demon. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was half-right. I used "eh...", ya presumptuous demon...Vmavanti (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You were a third right, Father Evans caught it at 13:05, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Only post here, don't bother responding: 1) One can discuss the legitimacy of categorizing this particular work as yacht rock, but that label itself has transformed into somehing positive, perhaps tongue-in-cheek positive, but not prima facie negative anymore. See numerous articles and blogs on this; as none of you see the need of adding referenced sources, nor do I. 2) Vmavanti and isento need to take a more relaxed position toward each other; this is not the first time I'm seeing them lashing out at each other on this talk page, for no apparent reason. 3) Despite the humorous interventions regarding this thread, here and elsewhere, I won't add anymore punniness as that ship has sailed a long time ago. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "label itself has transformed into somehing positive, perhaps tongue-in-cheek positive, but not prima facie negative anymore". This is wrong, self-serving, and contradicts your "only post". It's your opinion and not a very thoughtful one. You keep posting, offering nothing of substance. Dan's incompetence has been proven repeatedly, thus there is no point in trying to engage him in rational conversation. My comments need to be seen in that context.Vmavanti (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have, but you're right in pointing that out. I'm not criticizing your edits to the article at all. It's the edits on this talk page I'm referring to. In this very thread. no sources to back arguments, but plenty of insults instead. That's not how it should be handled next time. Discuss, on topic, and gain consensus here. There are enough people watching this article and talk page. If an editor's behaviour is problematic, that can be discussed elsewhere (though I don't necessarily recommend you take it to one of those boards). In any event, the discussions on this talk page should be about content and sources, not about editors. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Lol. Sounds like intent. All for a prosodicaly deficient clone of the legit Kraut-rock tag. Isn't that because somehow SD dared Pretzel Logic? Or a revenge for Kid Charoline? Wood rots. It's not even pinkies. --Askedonty (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Yacht rock" as a genre 

message: Hi everyone! I admit I got a little heated about the Aja personnel edit, so my apologies to the two editors I got in a tiff/edit war with. Please allow me to start over and explain my reasoning for why I think the Personnel section is better formatted as a track-by-track basis.
#Each song has its own distinct set of musicians. This is the most obvious reason for why the personnel section should be organized like this. The simple list format barely reflects this--it's incredibly annoying to look for a song's musicians and have to find each name that has a "2" next to it (or whatever number, that is just an example). 
#The Manual of Style suggests it. From WP:PERSONNEL: "In some instances, an album will have a wide variety of performers from track to track. In these cases, it is helpful to list which tracks feature which performers. This can be done in one of two ways: by listing the track's name and then giving a list of performers, or by providing a single list of performers which notes parenthetically which tracks feature this artist...if a single list is likely to be less confusing, then use it; if a track-by-track breakdown is helpful, use that. Different styles will be employed on different articles for their individual needs...". I think a track-by-track breakdown is far more helpful than a list that spreads out each song's credits across a list of names. It's cleaner and much more understandable.
#Every copy of Aja's liner notes have them sectioned like this. Check the Discogs master page or the first CD issue, the liner notes (if there are any) write them out like this. Since the personnel section is being sourced from the liner notes, reflecting its exact format is much more understandable than lumping everyone together.
#"We don't do this for other albums" This reason was brought up by a user--I don't remember, and I don't want to "name names" or whatever. I'm not here to get in a fight or anything lol but I thought this point was important to bring up. Just because we don't do it for other albums, doesn't mean we shouldn't for this one. This format works a lot better for albums with complicated lineups, and Aja is exactly that. Plus, if need be, I'd be more than willing to go through each of SD's albums and format it like this, if consistency is the issue. I think it's much more legible and cleaner.
Let me know what you guys think.D1119 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to be consistent throughout the site. If we do it your way, then people will want to start doing for "their favorite album" too, just as you are. Every editor is supposed to practice impartiality. I love this album and I love Steely Dan. But I don't give out special favors to feed my biases. Liner notes don't matter. It isn't the job of Wikipedia to copy every liner note ever written. This information is easy to obtain. Adding this information merely clutters the page and opens the door to many others to do the same. I already play enough whack a mile already.Vmavanti (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia does aim for consistency of form from article to article. The jazz project aims for consistency. But I figured out a way for you to get what your little heart desires. Find a way to remove it from the jazz project, and I don't care what you do to it. Be warned. I tried that in the past and it led to rage. It's not a jazz album but there were people who insisted it remain in the jazz project. Oddly, none of those people actually work on the jazz project.Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, Dan. You are always so cooperative, so generous, so understanding. What a pleasure it is to communicate with such a wonderful person.Vmavanti (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

text:  Dan started the personal attacks, which is very much against the rules here and he knows it. I stick by my point, though you called it insulting: What we are talking about is personal desire, your special interest versus the public interest, the interests of the encyclopedia as opposed to yours and Dan's own desires. You want. That doesn't govern Wikipedia. I have shelves of books about jazz. Show me one that calls Aja a jazz album or that calls Steely Dan a jazz band. In fact, Dan insists it's not a jazz band—it's a "yacht rock" band and a "yacht rock" album. That's an interesting attempt to square a circle. Steely Dan is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. In Brian Sweet's biography, Becker and Fagen deny being a jazz band. "References" to jazz in the article doesn't mean it's a jazz album or that it belongs in the jazz project. If that were true, we would include "jazzercise", "jazz hands", and Jazz by Queen. I've given you many reasons here to remove this album from the jazz project. That was the deal I offered in order to allow you to change the personnel page, but Dan has been engaging in edit warring, which is also against the rules here and he knows it.Vmavanti (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't call it "insulting". This is not about personal desire. I started this with four unbiased reasons why the personnel section should be listed the way I had it. You haven't responded to most of my reasonings or counterarguments, instead bringing up a completely different argument that you had that was shelved. You even quote a previous post from that argument in your "rebuttal". Jazz album personnel sections are not consistent, as proven with Bitches Brew. Whether this is in the jazz project or not has little bearing on how the personnel section should look. You are simply being obstinate for obstinacy's sake. I don't care for how long you've been listening to Steely Dan or reading about jazz. You (and Dan) are making this more personal than I have. Your latest revision has also removed positive edits elsewhere in the article, so I'm going to revert your edit. D1119 (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I certainly did respond to your points, but you failed to consider them thoughtfully. Instead you chose to call me a "supervillian" who is making "too big a deal" out of this, then to claim that I was the one being insulting. That's really something. Personal attacks are against the rules here—and disagreeing with you by following the rules doesn't make me a "supervillain". Insults reveal how weak your "arguments" are. Here's another: "You are simply being obstinate for obstinacy's sake". That doesn't describe me. Obviously this subject is a big deal to you, otherwise you wouldn't have made the change, right? And repeatedly reverted my edits. So who is being obstinate? We are supposed to discuss without making reverts, something neither your nor Dan has obeyed. So who is being obstinate? The one making the insults and breaking the rules? Or the one who can see past his own desires and follows the rules for the good of the readers and the encyclopedia? When you bring up Bitches Brew, you are using a common tactic among IP editors: "The rest of the kids are doing it, so why can't I?" I have heard this many times. I told you, there are two of us doing most of the work on the jazz project. Do you think I have time to play whack a mole on 30,000 articles? Do you think that if one article is wrong, therefore all articles ought to be wrong? Why not look at all the jazz articles and how those personnel sections are done rather than cherrypick one article so you can say, "Aha! That article does it, so I can do it, too." No, you can't. It doesn't work that way. You don't make the rules. I refer you to the essay "It's not about YOU." As for the charge that I brought a "completely irrelevant" point, what I offered was a deal for you to get your way, and you rejected that deal very quickly without much consideration. If it's in the jazz project, it's relevant to me. If you want to get your way, or try to, then remove it from the jazz project. I tried to do that, per our deal, but Dan reverted it. So who is being obstinate and uncooperative here? Instead of looking for tactics to get your way, you should try a little more honesty. As for the charge that it doesn't matter what I know about jazz or Steely Dan, it certainly does matter because that's the subject of the article It's the difference between knowledge and ignorance. You don't know what you don't know. How much you do you know about jazz? How much do you know about Wikipedia? How long have you been editing? How much of the documentation have you read?Vmavanti (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, kid. I didn't realize you answer for other people, too. You really are a genius. Comments like this are why you will be be banned. Keep it up.Vmavanti (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel structure 

message: Is this a WP:PDAB with Aja!? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, could be. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

text: After reading some policy, I'm not sure. WP:SMALLDIFF could imply that there's no ambiguity between the two. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDAB