User talk:Bdj/Archive3

Re:Drinking game noms

No. I personally do not have access to any of the 250+ books on drinking games you continually refer to, so I personally cannot verify the existence of any of these games. These articles were a proceedual nomination based on the aborted mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game), and the "relist individually" suggestion of at least four different editors.

All those articles were nominated for the same reasons, a lack of verifiable information taken from reliable sources. If someone can go "But wait, it definitely appears here, published on this date by this company" then I will be happy to reconsider my own personal stance on the article, as I have done for a few of them now. However, saying "There's 250 different books on drinking games, its gotta be in there somewhere!", doesn't really cut it for me. -- Saberwyn 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you apparently didn't follow the links to the specific examples or you wouldn't have said that. It would have been nice to see some research effort is all. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this as necessary

We cancel each other out. No question. I really hate seeing your votes at Afd that cancel mine out or actually double cancel mine out. No consensus can be reached without compromise, just ask members of congress. We need to engage in give and take. If you want to keep memes and I would like to get rid of lies such as "Cleveland steamer," we should talk. Feel free to archive this immediately. Brian G. Crawford 06:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't write the comment above. I allowed Mozilla to archive my password, unfortunately. Sorry about that. Brian G. Crawford 05:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second)

Hi, I notice you've had a say in previous discussions about deletions/undeletions for the myg0t article, I'd just like to inform you that another such discussion is occurring now, so if you'd like to voice your opinion, for or against undeletion of the article, feel free to post your thoughts.[1] - USER-cacophony 20:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keane articles

Hi there
Sorry about the Keane articles the other day but I couldn't read your messages at time. I read them and I realized I was wrong about separating the songs because any other band has it (Thanks for that) and because some songs were really stubs, so I revert some of my last changes. I took part of your edit and mix it with more info. About the EC and TITLT singles, I decided to keep both two discs in the same page but making a clear difference between them avoiding future confusions from visitors or another Wikipedians. I 've also added the midi music samples in the repaired list of songs, now separated from the main Keane article and separating unreleased songs from released ones. See you and thanks again:)

User conduct RfC on Brian G. Crawford

Thought you might be interested in this:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Brian_G._Crawford. -- backburner001 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one for you

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamison Parker. Cheers. PJM 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TW Walsh left Headphones

I noticed that you reinstated TW Walsh as a member of Headphones. :-) FYI, see the question Q: Why did you leave Headphones? at http://twwalsh.com/blog/?page_id=2 -- Mattbrundage 13:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, didn't catch that blog post. I'll pull it out, good catch. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other side of the pillow

Regardless of when an AfD starts, it can be closed at any time to an administrator's descretion. On this AfD we had a concensus to delete (with some speedy votes) and so it was closed early, and the article deleted. Thanks, — FireFox (U T C) 21:24, 27 May '06

What consensus? The page was only up for less than a day, instead of the 5 its supposed to, so it's tough to say as such. Secondly, can you point out where admin discretion factors in according to process? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at today's AfD page. Note that quite a few discussions have been closed already due to a clear consensus. The same applies here. In this specific AfD, we have 15 delete votes, against 1 keep. That is a clear consensus. Where admin discretion comes into it you ask... WP:IAR and WP:UCS. — FireFox (U T C) 21:35, 27 May '06

And they probably shouldn't have been. I'll likely be asking about those, too. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing saying AfD's must be left open for the full 5 days. They can be closed at admin discretion, when the admin feels a consensus had been reached and it had. Therefore, I stand by my actions. I'm going to sleep now so I'll answer any further questions tomorrow. — FireFox (U T C) 21:40, 27 May '06

Actually, the deletion process for admins clearly notes what to do after 5 days. It does not say a thing about closing early. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Price

If I had closed purely on votecounting, it would probably have been closed no consensus, with 6 deletes against 4 keeps. The AfD had already been relisted, and had therefore been open 10 days and needed closing. I read through the discussion and came to my 'conclusion' of deleting based on the information given by everybody, including you, and coming to my own desision. I don't really know how to explain the closure of an AfD - I closed it how I did because that seemed the most sensible thing to do. — Fire Fox 13:38, 28 May '06

I don't mind that you closed it, I am simply curious as to how you came to the delete decision. Since you admit that straight vote counting would have gotten a no consensus, and (at least by my view) not much was offered in terms of a reason to delete, I'm simply wondering what you used as a sensible interpretation. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needed closing, so I closed it in the most appropriate way that appeared to me at the time. I really don't know what else to say, sorry. — Fire Fox 14:02, 28 May '06

What made "delete" the most appropriate? I ask the question because i'm sure that there was a thought process going on regarding the close when you did it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably quite a few small things, such as the only two votes after the relist being deletes, the long explanation of JzG's opinion, the lack of verification. — Fire Fox 14:09, 28 May '06

Can't say much about the first, but the second was dealt with, and the third is wrong, as it was easily verifiable, as I linked. Very odd. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've got to reply to you something... I told you I don't know how to explain why I closed it as I did apart from what I said earlier. I'm still quite young, and I haven't really had much experience in explaining actions yet! — Fire Fox 14:17, 28 May '06

That's fine. simply trying to get what you're thinking, that's all. Thanks for the input. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Don't Mention the World Cup

I have responded to your comment on this page. Will you please have a look, and attempt to see my side of this AfD? — Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Perhaps you didn't think I'd notice,..

Try not to insult my intelligence any more than you already have.

... but things like "And as for User:Badlydrawnjeff -- jeezus, I do NOT know what his major malfunction is, but insulting my intelligence with obvious nonsense is the surest way to get MY goat. He's badly in need of a clue-by-four regarding basic encyclopedic standards -- such as proving something is true or at least offering some evidence it is -- and his faith-based approach to keeping every sliver of anything is truly annoying" certainly aren't appreciated.

Too bad, so sad. Grow up: stop spouting obvious and transparent nonsense -- either because you are hoping no one notices or because you are incapable of doing otherwise -- and I've got no problem with you. You are allegedly a college grad: if you had tried any of your empty rhetorical stunts -- airily proclaiming something to be true with not the slightest shred of evidence and stamping your feet and pouting when called on it -- in any of your papers, the TAs/professors would have bounced them back so fast your head would have spun: it's not going to work here, either. This is a reality-based encyclopedia, not, as you seem to imagine, a faith-based one: Tinkerbell doesn't exist, and closing your eyes and wishing something were so doesn't make it so. As my talk page says, "It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that." --Calton | Talk 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, you have a streak in you. Hey, whatever works, either way. As I said, I hope you don't cross the wrong person, as you're only building up a worse case for yourself if they decide to act on it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 6, 2006

This is the article as it was before I chopped most of it: --kingboyk 08:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 6, 2006 is National Day of Slayer which invokes the day 6/6/06. The public is promoted to:

Listen to Slayer at full blast in your car.
Listen to Slayer at full blast in your home.
Listen to Slayer at full blast at your place of employment.
Listen to Slayer at full blast in any public place you prefer.

DO NOT use headphones! The objective of this day is for everyone within earshot to understand that it is the National Day of Slayer. National holidays in America aren't just about celebrating; they're about forcing it upon non-participants.

Taking that participation to a problematic level:

Stage a "Slay-out." Don't go to work. Listen to Slayer.
Have a huge block party that clogs up a street in your neighborhood. Blast Slayer albums all evening. Get police cruisers and helicopters on the scene. Finish with a full-scale riot.
Spray paint Slayer logos on churches, synagogues, or cemeteries.
Play Slayer covers with your own band (since 99% of your riffs are stolen from Slayer anyway).
Kill the neighbor's dog and blame it on Slayer.

==External links==

http://www.nationaldayofslayer.org/
Good to know. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...I've got some egg on my face now....

Hi there.

Just dropping a line to say that you're completely right in your vote for keep in the Save Me (Remy Zero). Before you put the infomation up on the page, I thought the the area had been covered in the Golden Hum article. Because I live in the UK, I didn't know it reached 27th on the US billboard. My bad, and well done on making the article much better. Th e Halo (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. They're not the most popular band in the world, and I applaud anyone who avoids Smallville. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

on the Scoop Jackson article. Much appreciated. -- FRCP11 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, glad to pitch in. It isn't the first time I've had to deal with him, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : With Lights and Sirens

Done. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sir! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Me

Hi - I am not sure how to make a comment on AfD without messing it up (do I just "edit" or is there a way to +add a comment? I've never had anything to do with Afd before) so I thought I'd just let you know that I did a bit of work on the Save Me page and I hope that it is now notable enough for all to agree on? I'm happy to work on it more if you can think of other things to add... H0n0r 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! A+ for the sourcing, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someday Angeline

Was just created and proposed for deletion by someone other than me. Since it's in one of your areas of interest, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Erik the Rude 15:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Probably wouldn't have caught this myself, it's appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curves (fitness)

I'm the person who proposed that article for deletion, good job on turning the article into a proper stub, no more objection from me. Equendil Talk 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. Glad it works, I wish I knew more about the place. Being, um, male, doesn't really lend it to being catered toward me, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Unsalvagable leftwing soapbox article

Articles like this make the encyclopedia look bad--RCT 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, a restart could be useful... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Coast League unprotection

Done. :) --InShaneee 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, sir. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Glennordway.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Glennordway.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My own editor review

Just thought I'd let you know about my editor review. Comments on my performance as an editor would be appreciated, if you feel inclined to participate. --backburner001 16:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop Jackson

I will edit anyway I see fit, you speak of POV but how a neo-con apologist can have any credibility in NPOV is beyond me. Please consider this channel of communication closed and don't harass or be disruptive towards me again.

So, personal attacks is the route you choose to go, got it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions are the realm of the cynic and the ignorant.
I deal in realities.
Let me re-iterate if you did not understand me before, this channel of communication is closed. 62.77.181.16 11:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you deal in realities? I expect to see you reverting yourself at the Jackson page, then, as you removed a lot of reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take the line "this channel of communication is closed" as a metaphor for "I have no interest in debating with those whom I know to be ignorant and misguided" but I was doing my utmost not to get personal, you did drag it out of me however. Like I told you (you seem to have to be told a lot of things twice) I never assume, I deal in realities, you may say they are perceived realities, however I know what is real and what is not. Please desist from replying to me as I have no reason to engage in communication with the likes of you. 62.77.181.16 11:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You actually got personal in your first response, but you seem to be assuming quite a bit about your fellow editors as well as assuming incorrect things about the reality of Scoop's legacy. Please desist from making personal attacks (see WP:CIVIL) and point-of-view editing (see WP:NPOV) before this has to go to a different avenue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

I warned you about being disruptive towards me and warned you against harassing and threatening me on my user page. I have not on one occasion engaged in a personal attack, I have always contributed in relation to the realities and the issues, you are threading on thin ice at the moment boy so I am officially giving you a final warning. I have asked you three times to desist from posting on my userpage yet you continue to do so. Be grateful for my charity, restraint and generosity of spirit for not having you extinguished from the WP community. If this harassment continues once more, WP may become a memory for you. 62.77.181.16 14:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll simply have to let the admins decide on that one, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV tag is in retaliation for Christine Gregoire, where 8bitJake is deleting my edits after another editor sanitized a contribution I made. -- FRCP11 18:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you two really seem to play well with others.--8bitJake 22:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love people! --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: South Coast League

Okay. Can you give me a few hours to do some research? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one complain about Wikistalking?

The Christine Gregoire edits are in bad faith, and he's pulling the same crap on me at Moby that he did at Henry M. Jackson, where he deletes any verified information that doesn't meet his Oceania was always at war with Eastasia preconceptions. -- FRCP11 12:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8BJ go back a bit. He pulled some nonsense on Morgan Spurlock, and I made the mistake of admitting that I looked at his contributions. Of course, seeing as he advertises them on his page, it's asking for it, but whatever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is rich Jeff since you started editing Dave Reichart article after you first Wikistalked me. I have been editing Christine Gregoire and Moby for long before FRCP11 ever touch them. How are thing over at The Ministry of Truth? Double Plus Good?--8bitJake 18:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Jake, whatever you say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded internet meme

Earlier today someone prodded Niggerchanovsky, an article about a supposed internet meme. As Wikipedia's biggest defender of all things meme-y, I figured you would be best qualified to evaluate whether it should be de-prodded or left to twist in the wind. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even I can't defend keeping this one around. Yeesh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the imput. youngamerican (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball

I am a fan of the Lancaster Barnstormers of the Atlantic League. I am working to improve all pages related to independent baseball. Thanks for your response and it would be great if you had any ideas to further improve these articles. Is there anything you would like to see? As I can see you are from Worcester, MA, I will improve the Tornadoes article soon. I kind of do different leagues and teams randomly. I started with the Atlantic because that represents where I am from, and the Can-Am after that as I am proud to be from the North.

Sidekick

I saw your comments in the AfD here. Did you vote for a keep? -- ^Evanx(tag?) 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Trinity

I think the real question you should asking is why was Trinity Grammar School, New South Wales nominated for deletion in the first place. The reason given by the nominator (a 16 year old from Mequon, WI) was that Trinity "does not seem to be notable or exceptional in any way" which is simply just not true. Trinity has a history of just short of 100 years and is one of the six Combined Associated Schools of Sydney. But even if it wasn't, if was just a run of the mill 7-12 government high school, the requirement set out at Wikipedia:Schools states that:

If a school article is verifiable and meets one or more of the following criteria, it should be kept:

It has 3 or more full and complete sentences of verifiable, factual information that is not published solely by the school itself, or already included/better located on a district or city wiki article (ie: phone book information does not count toward the sentence total, that includes city, address, district, or phone number(s)). Such information can be included in the article but will not count toward the sentence total.
It has one or more interwiki links (e.g. another version already exists in another language)
It has one or more PD/GFDL/free pictures

Bottom line, the article meets the criteria and should have never been nominated in the first place. I hope this clears things up. Regards -- Ianblair23 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it doesn't meet any speedy criterion. I'm trying to slowly persuade people to, when they close early, explain very clearly why, and if it was a WP:POINT violation, say so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to make a deal.

Politicians do it all the time, and without deals there can be no real compromise, but surely, with your background, you know that. I apologize for talking about you in the third person with Calton. I probably should have come to you first, and I especially realized that after more of Calton's rants. Calton's a good contributor, imo, but you two just don't seem to get along. I tried to identify a children's book for you to fix (with no expectation of return), because I read your interests on your userpage, and I'm more than willing to refer endangered articles to you when I find them, so that you may bring them up to article status. If you'd like me to abstain from votes on memes, I'd be willing to do that too. I personally think internet fads aren't worth recording, as they come and go, and due to my age, I've probaby seen quite a few from the early nineties that you haven't. Anyway, I'm willing to stay out of your memes and your music, and I'll even alert you of their impending doom as necessary, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't sabotage some causes that are near and dear to me. I hate advertising, I don't like that huge amounts of minor fictional characters get articles, but most of all, I hate trivia articles. I like reality. I think if we could support each other's agendas, we could make some real progress together. I think one of the main problems is that you believe in documenting pop culture intertextuality, and I do not. As a literary scholar myself, I think stories should largely stand alone, and the greatest ones do. What it boils down to is that I'm willing to help you advance your agenda, if you help me advance mine by not objecting. I think it's a win-win arrangement. Well, think about it, as I am sincere. Erik the Rude 00:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your honesty and your coming to me, but doing so would run counter to what I'm trying to build on the side of my music and book articles. I certainly see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure where that would ultimately benefit either of us. You have my word, however, that i'll tread much lighter on these issues you're passionate about and not be completely militant as I tend to be about it. You've earned that muchrespect from me. As for the Calton stuff, water under the bridge. You've proven yourself to be an asset, and that's all that matters. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Sig

Hey, could you please consider doing something about your signature? It's near impossible to parse in the editing screen. Thanks, and sorry if you're annoyed by this, but there are a lot of people on sig patrol right now (I'm not one of them), and I'd rather not see you get caught up in the drama blindsided. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, didn't realise it was a problem... I've seen a couple of people create a template to use for their signature... is this accepted or should I just go back to boring black? Thanks for bringing it to my attention, anyway. -- PageantUpdater 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP:SIG is the typical guideline for this thing, but your color changes and font changes make the editing page huge (4 lines on my 1024x768) and it was very hard to get to your talk page. It's not visibly ugly on the page, but it's more the editing box that'll cheese people off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me towards the guidelines... is this better? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's neater. Still a little longish, but at least I can tell apart the places to get to where I'm going. Thanks for being pateint about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Sorry about giving that detailed explanation on the AfD on D-flat minor like you didn't know. Your "uh..." made me think you had no idea what I was talking about. Consider it an explanation for anybody who actually does have no idea what I'm talking about. :-) TheProject 00:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, and no apology necessary, as that was overly snarky of me myself, to be honest. I should have assumed better with you anyway, you're much more versed in the playing, I was simply a lowly vocalist. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ballism

I'm glad you're one of the people who has actually read the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" section. Most people don't seem to get past the title and then just morph "crystal ball" into whatever they feel it should mean. The section itself never actually uses the phrase "crystal ball" but everyone just says "thats crystal ball, delete it". More often then not when people cite "crystal ball" the text of the crystal ball section does not support their position. Qutezuce 01:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's getting to be extra-super frustrating. Education is the only way, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 05:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned template

Sorry about that, that was really strange. I didn't get an edit conflict message when I tried to put the template on, and certainly didn't intentionally remove any of your comments. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal, it probably came out sterner than I intended, but the edit summary showed some of mine getting gobbled. All is well, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiProject on memes

Jeff, I wish you would reconsider your stance on setting up a wikiproject for memes, I honestly feel it's the best way forward for it, a group of like minded editors are going to be able to better edit the articles, work to existing standards and create their own, and thus determine the answers that seem to elude us. I'm tired of butting heads on this one and I'm going to call it a day. Hand on heart, I agree with you in spirit, I just don't seem to be able to find common ground in the sense of a guideline. Steve block Talk 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alofoque

Hello Jeff. I've restored the article, so you can start a 2nd nomination to restart the debate. Many thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put up a 2nd nomination. I just gotta ask: why are you fighting so hard for this piece of self-promotion? Have you actually heard of this band? Mango juice^talk 03:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. I'm simply looking for it to get its full hearing., the speedy was out of process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thing was, it was a legitimate speedy; the article never claimed notability. You added the bit about them touring after it was undeleted, and now it wouldn't be a legit speedy. But you were fighting pretty hard for the inclusion of this article even before that. I can tell you're an inclusionist, but you seem to have good research skills and know policy pretty well. And you've been involved in AfD long enough to know that an article like this one doesn't stand a chance of being kept. It just seems like a waste of your efforts. Mango juice^talk 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an expectation that the assertion in the AfD would save it from a speedy. Regardless, whether it stands a chance is irrelevant if it means we're going to abandon process on it, which we should not do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hey -- could you help out trying to find some references for the sites in the list on Shock site? We could use your research skills. To avoid edit warring, we've had to be pretty lenient about the reliability of sources (the source for Hai2U, for instance, is from some unremarkable Hentai forum's rules against trolling). In particular, we need a source for Meatspin.com; it's ALL over the web, but we haven't found any decent sources yet. Mango juice^talk 03:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on my way to bed, but I'll take a look at it tomorrow for you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 outcome

Do let me know if you are seeking to appeal. I have replied on the article's deletion talk page. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq and the War on Terrorism

Wikipedia:WOT has opened its straw poll, and is open to discussion. Rangeley 01:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bowker

The nomination was my own. I was the admin reviewing his ripe prod, and I felt like getting some consensus. When a dozen strong and unopposed keep votes came in, I felt I had all the input I needed and there was no need to continue. Do you see anything wrong with that? - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was a delete vote in there. I do see a problem with it as it was out of process, which is why I asked. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process is a very strong expression. I don't believe I did anything remotely controversial - substantively that is, not procedurally. Sorry about the delete vote - you're right. No rationale though. I reiterate - it was my own AfD - and I've seen a many AfD's closed despite some delete votes when the nom is withdrawn, as in this case. I am not sure this is worth even discussing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process may be strong, but it's true and it's becoming increasingly important given some folks's (and this isn't your M.O. and I don't want it to become one) ignoring of process. It's probably not a controversial result, but I see no reason to abandon process for it, even if you feel others have. Yes, I'm harping on this with a few people, but if we don't have process, we may as well not bother with this project anymore, because that small semblance of order is what keeps things running smoothly.--badlydrawnjeff talk 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to me about process - I am a law student. We're trained to sniff out process. Anyway, your comments are appreciated, especially if you pursue other much bigger process lapses on WP with commensurate zeal. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do, when I catch it. It would simply be appreciated to be aware of it in the future, and considering reopening the AfD and allowing it to run its course would be pleasant as well. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go give JzG a hard time over this, Crusader in Chief. LOL! - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It met a speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt

Hi Jeff! There's ample precident for using WP:SNOW for closing all manner of processes on Wikipedia - AfD, RfA etc. Indeed, Daniel Brandt has been SNOWBALLed once before on AfD.

I think the point here is that closing the AfD was out of process, but that the process itself was not suitable for the purpose. When a process won't work on what it is being used for, then SNOW is the ideal way of summing up the reasoning for aborting the process without spending valuable bytes explaining.

It's certainly much closer to my thinking in closing the AfD than declaring it a WP:POINT would have been. And I'd rather not lie about my thinking just to make it fit with the correct WP:OMGWTFBBQ policy page. Cheers! ➨ Я Є DVERS 09:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent is without merit, and, in fact, we have a policy against binding precedents. Snow is not policy or guideline, and should be avoided as it's often divisive and inflammatory. Please consider using a different rationale if you feel the need to ignore the processes in place. The Brandt AfDs have been POINT violations, not snow closes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were 14 keeps, of which 11 were speedy. There were 4 deletes, of which 1 was Brandt himself. Regardless of whether Brandt was making a WP:POINT, this eighth AfD didn't have a snowball's chance of going anywhere. You personally may not like WP:SNOW and the rationale given therein, but the fact is that the page exists, SNOW is used quite often, there is precedent (binding or otherwise), and that my reason for closing the AfD was to be found entirely in the text of WP:SNOW and there's no reason I should pretend to have another line of reasoning just to suit people who don't like the SNOW idea/wording/etc.

My best advice to you would be for you to nominate WP:SNOW for MfD if you don't like it existing. Make your points there and see what the consensus for its existance and use is. That seems better than repeatedly telling me that I was wrong for using something you don't like. Thanks. ➨ Я Є DVERS 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already have. It didn't work, unfortunately. It was kept for historical value, since it's not a policy or guideline. Since there are better reasons to close it, it would be preferable that admins use existing policy to close AfDs instead of divisive essays which have no basis in the workings of WP. You could have done so too, that's all. I'm sorry you're offended by my telling you that your invoking of a divisive essay was wrong and out of process, but it unfortunately was, as Brandt Afds are closed because they're point violations, not due to the nonsense that is WP:SNOW. Please reconsider your closing statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Jeff. I can't reconsider my reasoning for closing the Brandt AfD as my reasoning was WP:SNOW. Giving another reason now would (a) be rewriting history and (b) be lying. Whether SNOW is official or not or not to be invoked, whether there is precident or not or not to be followed, whether there are other reasons that others may have used or not, it doesn't matter: the fact is, I closed the AfD because the process involved was not fit for the issue at hand, and the shortcut WP:OMGWTFBBQ-wording for that is WP:SNOWBALL. I'm sorry I can't rewrite history, but then again, a glance at the diffs would just show everyone that I had tried to - thereby making doing so pointless in the extreme. Cheers. ➨ Я Є DVERS 11:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you could, but i understand you won't, and tht's fine. I hope that you'll consider not using WP:SNOW as a reason in the future, as it's grossly out of process and not widely accepted. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subset of WP:IAR. Sometimes it's really not worth wasting further community time on something. But nobody's judgment is infallible, and if a trusted user in good standing disputes it I think that a speedy reversion is the wise course. Never attribute motives, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 16:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but if I can keep shifting the attention AWAY from WP:IAR and start crafting our policies to better serve what we're typically doing anyway (see the recent change at speedy keep for an example), it's a plus. Part of that is changing the attitude that the processes simply don't matter, when we can probably find a process to fit the situation, such as with Brandt AfDs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball

Thanks for your message - responded on my talk page as per your request at the top of this page. Proto///type 15:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello Badlydrawnjeff, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guideline proposal

Hi, me and Ephilei drafted a guideline proposal at WP:NNOT, and if you're interested I would appreciate your comments or edits. Cya around. Fresheneesz 10:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered...

Have you ever considered taking up the Wikimop? I've been looking through your contributions and you seem to be a fearless crusader for WP:V and WP:NPOV. You do a lot of good work around the project, too, and you've been here a long time. It's no big deal, you know... Just zis Guy you know? 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say that you're one of the last people I'd ever expect to ask, haha. I've certainly considered it, although I've made my share of enemies too. I'm certainly not against the idea, and you're not the first to propose it, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted to be able to surprise you :-) Never mistake disagreement for disrespect, Jeff. I'm off to RFA now... Just zis Guy you know? 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you very much. Hopefully I'll have this up and rolling tonight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff. I think it's bad form to date and post it before acceptance. If there are any edits you'd like to draw attention to please linkn them. Just zis Guy you know? 17:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, sir. Wish me luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And remember, if it fails that does not make you a bad person. I've seen some bruising RFAs, quite at odds with the "no big deal" approach; if people make peronsla judgments, try not to take it personally. Don't argue, but do post respectful refutations of misapprehensions. If it goes down? Who cares. Wait six months and try again. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more surprised than I think you realize, heh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. I expected to e soundly rejected - instead I made WP:100. Funny old world... Just zis Guy you know? 19:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, you might want to make some kind ofd statement re speedy A7. I think it's unlikely you would leave an article which says, in effect, that "Joe Bloggs is a senior at Mudhole Flats High" (i.e. no assertion of notability and no realistic possibility of verification) but I think some people would like to be reassured that if an editor tags an article you would, rather than simply removing the tag, PROD or AfD it, in a janitorial capacity, or fix it so the assertion of notability is plain to see, or userfy it if it's an obvious autobiography. I am confident this is what you would do. Just zis Guy you know? 08:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Better clear than not, worked well in another capacity anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling Cat

Sorry for the delay, I was away for a few days. I've deleted the page, feel free to write a new article that does establish notability. From the state of the previous article I can't ever see it passing AFD, but good luck anyway! the wub "?!" 13:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, thanks. Totally forgot about that, haha. I'll put it on my list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA related question

I'm having trouble gelling your responses to answers 1 and 6. If you come across something marked for speedy under CSD A7, what would you do with it? If you think it's sufficiently notable to escape speedy deletion, then the original nominator would probably send it to AfD. But AfD has become exceptionally busy, so if you don't delete, the risk is that AfD gets clogged with things that the community would vote to delete anyway. Your thoughts?--Kchase02 T 06:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'd really depend on the situation. i'm obviously not going to delete something thatshows notability, but I'm more than likely going to avoid the A7s as to not anger anyone about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deena Katz

I like you, don't know all the rules to this thing, but you I like. I give up on trying to fix this thing; Pepper is a pioneer in my industry but i just cannot seem to figure this wikipedia thing out between "advertisements", POV (which I thought I cleared up but i guess not), "encyclopedia type" entry. Thanks for your contributions to the page and i'll let the experts update from now on, I'm going back to sternfannetwork. One question though, why was the picture taken down? It's famous in our circles, created by Ric Machin and used in trade publications and literature when she speaks. I even got Ric & the company blessing to the pic. Are only photographs acceptable for individuals?Frank4southmiami 09:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)frank4southmiami[reply]

Well, mostly because I'm not sure the copyright situation is clear enough, and I doubt the folks who "own" it wouldn't be interested in a GFDL license for it. It's certainly a nice image, but I'm not sure it fits the encyclopedic image. Either way, good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt an edit conflict would count, but I'm done anyway. You can keep edit warring, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two. Since the only other person editing the article was you (right), you're basically saying that you're done "contibuting" for the day, now that you've run out of reverts? Good for you! Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not really, from the history, but I see you won't let this go anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than you and I, who else edited the article from 11:42, 30 June 2006 untill right now? Who was edit warring here? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's going to be...

...close! Kinda like Germany:Argentina... What a smackdown! - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, who the hell knows. It's going to depend on a few factors that I hope get taken into consideration, methinks. I think I'd do well with penalty kicks, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]