User talk:Bdj/Archive1

This is an archive of my 2005 talk page. Please do not edit it, if you have questions or comments, send them User talk:Badlydrawnjeff.

I apologize

Hi there. Just wanted to apologize for hastily placing you on 3RR. In retrospect, I think I entered it too hastily and have asked that it be withdrawn. Although we obviously differ strongly in many of our views, you didn't violate the 3RR. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than fine. In a heat-of-the-moment, polarizing situation like the Rove one, it's not out of the question for either of us to get a bit out of hand. I haven't been the nicest person about things, either, so hopefully we can go forward knowing we're both trying to make this work in mind. --Badlydrawnjeff 06:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking guideline proposal

Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 19:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ED Photos

Erwin, I'm listing both of the photos you uploaded on IfD this morning, as they're both copyright violations and WP has no right to have them here. Please do us all a favor and, if you insist on continuing to update Encyclopedia Dramatica, doing so with images that have a clear copyright permission on them, and NOT ones from her website (with explicit rules) and Myspace (with a TOS). --Badlydrawnjeff 12:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure the second image was copyvio free - it was taken from a promotional website advertising Sherrod's website. Erwin

The second image is not copyvio free. For one, does the promotional website allow for you to take images without permission? Did you get permission from the person who allowed the promo site to use them? The obvious answer is no. The images will almost certainly be deleted for copyvio regardless of this discussion as a result. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Is your name a take off of Badly Drawn Boy? Also, Serenity?!?! It was really good, eh? I assume you watched Firefly. Feel free to answer here, I'll keep an eye on it. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 16:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is. Big fan of his early stuff, although his last album really disappointed me. Also, yes, big Firefly fan, and the flick is great (seen it three times already). --Badlydrawnjeff 16:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've heard his new CD, but I do like his old stuff as well. My sister bought the DVDs of Firefly and was freaking out about them. She told me I HAD to watch them. I did, and was pretty much hooked. Three times?!?! Wow, you really do like it. I didn't think it would be such a hit, but I think it came in second this past weekend. Next movie (or if the show comes back) here I come. No power in the Verse can stop me. Cheers. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 17:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity in 2000 words or less

Please tell me you've seen this website!!! Funniest thing I've read in a long, loooong time. Serenity in 2000 Words or Less See ya. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Very much so. i'm still trying to figure out if River was really made of chocolate, though... --badlydrawnjeff 01:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

No worries. It's fixed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dapekote

just put that gnaa troll up on RfC already. walk through his contrib list and it's obvious his goal is not to make positive contributions. SchmuckyTheCat 17:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know his motives or pretend to know them. But to do an RfC, two people have to go to his talk page and try to rectify it. If you think there's enough there already, I may just go ahead and do it, but I want it to be especially clear before I rock the boat any further. Besides, it's kinda fun to constantly tweak his logic when he thinks that you can rip stuff off of other website and pretend you have permission. --badlydrawnjeff 17:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have to be on his talk page. Just that people have tried to resolve the dispute. There is plenty of talk page discusson to show folks reasoning with him. SchmuckyTheCat 19:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've never done an RfC before, so I'll try to do it tonight when I have a shot if you or the other guy doesn't get to it first. --badlydrawnjeff 19:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Senator McCain's Wiki

Hi,

I was just wondering why you deleted my section about "Winning the War in Iraq" from John McCain's wiki. This was a major announcement that made all of the news channels and certainly deserves to be under "political career" just as much as "Detention of Suspected Terrorists". I even cited the link to Senator McCain's website so that people could read his speech in his own words.

I'm going to put it back up. Please respond to me with your reason for taking it down before doing so again. If any changes need to be made I would be happy to do it.

Thank you, usadefcon1

The section is fine under, say, the Iraq War or something similar, but the section ended up being nearly as long as the rest of the section for what ends up being a footnote in his political career overall. I moved the important information from his speech over to the general area, and I meant to throw the link to the speech elsehwere in the article, and perhaps I forgot to do that. But, regardless, there was a lot of unnecessary fluff there and I feel the article is better served with the shorter paragraph mention in the general area where his Iraq position was already listed. --badlydrawnjeff 20:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gah!

There IS a move button! Believe it or not, I have NEVER seen that before, which is pretty sad. I've manually moved three or four articles without realizing that tool existed. Thanks for the heads-up. 128.205.138.114 19:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC) <--- argh, I logged out. Tom Lillis 20:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Dramatica proposal for deletion

I would like your opinion on this one. I have reviewed the very disturbing talk history of Encyclopaedia Dramatica, including repeated vandalism, legal threats, slander, libel, and every other kind of internet nuisance that you could imagine. One of the key elements is that Encyclopaedia Dramatica is a parody - in other words it is not true. It says quite clearly in all of their disclaimers that they, like LJ Drama, are not designed to be accurate.

The Encyclopaedia Dramatica article is not accurate, and I don't think that it ever can be, given that Encyclopaedia Dramatica itself is a parody, and hence is not accurate. You cannot reference Encyclopaedia Dramatica for anything factual. Henceforth, you cannot reference it in Wikipedia, which is intended to be a factual account.

I saw the various arbitrations against both User: girlvinyl and User: jameth, the two founders of Encyclopaedia Dramatica (Jameth was also a co-founder of LJ Drama) in relation to their vandalism, both of Encyclopaedia Dramatica and other articles. In essence, therefore, Encyclopaedia Dramatica acts as an advertisement promoting trolling, vandalism and wikistalking.

Given that you state that you are against wikistalking, and you believe it is one of your aims to delete incorrect articles, I would like to propose that you put forward a motion to delete Encyclopaedia Dramatica.

As an alternative, I suggest that the article be trimmed down to a very, very small piece. But perhaps all that it requires is for it to be listed in an article that contains a list of wikicity projects.

Its popularity is not in question. Its accuracy is. 203.122.225.241 13:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. If accuracy is a problem, then start presenting in talk what information you feel is false. Then we can all discuss it in talk and come to a consensus. Otherwise, all you've been doing is haphazardly reverting changes that have been reached via consensus and replacing them with changes that are factually inaccurate. So no, that won't be happening. Notability is established, the article is factual as it stands from my last edit to the best of my knowledge. Also, think about creating an account, eh? --badlydrawnjeff 13:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, but they were a spin off of LJ Drama. Jameth, co-founder of LJ Drama, created Encyclopaedia Dramatica so as to continue to talk about Mediacrat, which was one of LJ Drama's most famous controversies that the_passives created and Jameth encouraged. The owner of Encyclopaedia Dramatica, girlvinyl, is an administrator of LJ Drama. LJ Drama advertises Encyclopaedia Dramatica on their front page as their "next new project". Ergo it IS a spinoff.

That's accurate, verified stuff. Silly to wipe it. 203.122.225.241 14:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. ED was created almost completely because the mediacrat article was deleted here. It's a result not of an LJD spin-off, but rather a facilitation of a desire to have LJ memes and internet phenomena categorized in a place where people could make fun of it. Is there some teaming between the two groups? Absolutely, but to say that it was created with anything other than the results of the Mediacrat VFD in mind is revisionism, and if it's not reverted by me, it will most certainly be reverted by someone else. Please, read the talk page at the ED article, do a little bit of research, and get with the program. --badlydrawnjeff 14:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported you to WP:3RR, Have a nice day.

You have been reported you to WP:3RR for a violation of the 3 revert rule. You can see the case here. Have a nice day. unsigned comment by 8bitJake.

Close, but no cigar. Either way, it's protected now, so hopefully you'll be able to think about your edits before making them in the future. --badlydrawnjeff 03:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 12 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 12:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently being challenged elsewhere. More info as it comes out. --badlydrawnjeff 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been overturned, nothing on the block log. --badlydrawnjeff 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're from MA?

Where do you live Bdj? I live in Lowell.--Azathar 20:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right outside Worcester. It's nice out here. Unlike that cesspool of Lowell. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff 20:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Schlussel

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block reversed. Thanks, Jareth: [1] --badlydrawnjeff 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I agree, we need to get this sorted out. Can I ask you to expand a little bit on the description of the problem you put in your medation request? Some diffs would be handy. It would be great if you could reply on my talk page :-) Dan100 (Talk) 10:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation response

First I'd like to thank you both for responding and providing good information for me to work from. I'm going to make a few broad suggestions.

Try to add to articles, rather than removing existing material. With Republican Party (United States) and Debbie Schlussel, try and add information without removing text already there. Don't worry if that makes some sections end up larger than others; that happens alot on Wikipedia. With time, the other bits will catch up!

If something can be said in a verifiable manner and can be sourced, it can go in. There should be no arguments over "notability" or the like as that's just not a consideration under Wikipedia policy. Basically, if there is a published source for a piece of information, that piece of information should go in (along with a reference to the source). We're not short of space!

Morgan Spurlock. Obviously both support and criticism for him should be written about, but try to be neutral with your language. This contains good information but this part:

In order to criticizes Morgan Spurlock's documentaries several websites have been created by members of the right wing in the United States. Most of these websites have a existing idea that the work of Morgan Spurlock is bad and they have engaged in many of the same kind of activities that they criticize Spurlock for allegedly engaging in.

is poorly written. That's pretty much original research - better just to say In order to criticizes Morgan Spurlock's documentaries several websites have been created period. Then the links.

Don't check each other's user contributions - that's just asking for trouble. Just keep your eyes on the articles you are concerned about.

Try to stay completely unemotional. Just focus on the edits and their validity, and don't discuss anything else such other user's conduct etc.

I'd suggest less reverting, as that never ever gets anyone anywhere. Have a look at WP:1RR.

Generally I think only good can come of this - all the articles involved have more information and can be enhanced.

Please direct your responses to this to my talk page :-) Dan100 (Talk) 12:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E6

Nice job on the E6 template. I've been wanting to work on articles for the whole E6 family for some time, but other things always seem to come up. Keep up the good work! – Clockwork Soul 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm almost done with the article creation, I'm not looking forward to the albums, but what can you do, heheh. --badlydrawnjeff 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore quote

Thank you for sourcing the quote I retrieved from 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. That quote deserved to be there, and you justified it. Эйрон Кинни 05:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. The sad thing is that the Goldberg book should have been good enough, but whatever. Glad to help. --badlydrawnjeff 13:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]