User talk:Bdj/Archive2

3RR
Please be aware you've reverted the Flint/Davison paragraph three times within 24 hours. If you do it again, you'll break the Three-revert rule and most likely be blocked for a period of time. AlistairMcMillan 03:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the meaningless warning. Same to you, since you wasted your time and mine here.  --badlydrawnjeff 03:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for your vote
I saw that you voted against the adminship of William M Connolly. I reviewed said candidate's actions on the Cold Fusion article and determined them to indeed be very biased and uncivil. I haven't looked at WC's actions on the aetherometry article yet though. The vast support for WC is truly disturbing. I am a candidate for the arbitration council. William M Connolly is precisely the type of biased and uncivil person that I would fight against.

I request that you review my candidate statement and questions at: Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/LawAndOrder, and consider voting for me, though only if you have suffrage for arbitration committee elections (registered before 9/30/2005, and have over 150 edits before 1/9/2006). The votes are vastly against me, so I will not win, but I have very few support votes, so voting for me will at least show that I (who is on your side) am less of a pariah. LawAndOrder 21:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually rather shocked myself that he's getting this much support. I think SEWilco put the sour taste into a lot of people's mouths, but nominating WMC is like nominating me. I dunno. I'll take a look at your notes (I don't vote often in these, as you can tell), but no promises. --badlydrawnjeff 21:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Poor Rich Ones
Hey, cool to see another fan, and especially one not local. Yeah, I've been putting off writing the article for an eternity too, but I finally got around to it. Feel free to expand! Haakon 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I actually heard of them before "Happy Happy Happy" got a stateside release.  I wish they hadn't broken up, but what can you do, right?  --badlydrawnjeff 19:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Globe
Dear Jeff,

A colleague and I are working on a Boston Globe story about wikipedia, and we are looking for a few local folks -- we have talked to several already -- who like to contribute and have views about the project. Will you call me at xxx xxx-xxxx? Or you could also email me at (e-mail removed)@globe.com if you want to suggest a number where and time when I could call you. I'm thinking of a short chat on the phone. Also, it's possible that we would want to take your picture.

Thanks so much,

(name removed)
 * Contacted privately. --badlydrawnjeff 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

re:411 (band)
Hi, regarding your decision at AfD, I'm fairly certain the "411" group in the article is entirely male, and from California. You may wish to take another look :D.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll let my vote reflect that. --badlydrawnjeff 15:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
(This is a continuation of Articles for deletion/Polkacide.) I agree that sometimes articles get deleted that shouldn't and it sucks when that happens. But consider how much time is wasted when a hundred people have to read an AFD and comment on it over a period of 5 days, just for the article to be deleted. Those people could have spent time creating other articles. I don't think this is a "deletionism vs inclusionism" issue; it is a "how do you spend your time most efficiently" issue. It's more efficient to delete and undelete the mistakes than be ultra-conservative. In Computer Science there is a maxim: "it is easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission". Cheers &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 22:15Z 
 * Well, I'm still convinced the most efficient way to do it is to, you know, not nominate notable articles for deletion. Instead of just tagging something AfD, people should take a minute to see if they can improve it.  Sadly... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI
You're correct that I've nominated a lot of junky bands for deletion lately. I don't think it's cool that I have to weed through a zillion junky bands that have less notability than people in my neighborhood just to get to bands that are actually worthwhile. And I'll continue to "clean up". Before you get to the point of blindly voting Keep on every one of my Afd's (it looks like you never vote to delete any music bands ever), take a look through my contributions and see how many bands I've saved by adding discographies and other hints at notability and how many others I've tried to start improving by tagging as uncat and unsourced, etc. Afd is not as evil a thing as you make it out to be. If we could get to a point where every band was clearly above a certain line, we wouldn't need to delete any others and Wikipedia wouldn't have the feel of a giant electronic one-cent used-CD store anymore. Just my two cents... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not planning on trolling your nominations, I have no time or interest for games to make a point nor could I possibly track them down and do research on them legitimately if I wanted to. I have major issues with a lot of band nominations, and I find a lot of AfD nominations for bands to be extremely lazy.  If you're not part of that group, good, but there's a religious adherence to WP:MUSIC that is somewhat disturbing, and the amount you've done lately makes me question it.  I'm glad you're attempting to improve some of them, though, that's more than we can say about other folks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there are plenty of bands that clearly don't make WP:MUSIC that I pass over because they seem to be starting out and have some following. As far as how appropriate WP:MUSIC is itself, I'll confess to not having data to back it up - I think it was established long before I got here.  If I wanted to raise the issue of things like the definition of "major label", I could tie up Afd forever on black metal bands alone - but I'm more interested in getting rid of obvious crap (like a death metal band called Paracoccidioidomicosisproctitissarcomucosis &mdash; please).  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, I'd be all for discarding Afd's for WP:MUSIC if we could somehow segregate the smaller less notable bands away from all the more popular bands. I realize that people - such as yourself I assume - like seeing lists of every band ever and I don't have a problem with that.  But I don't personally like such lists and get frustrated when they are blindly mixed in with the bands that have already made a name for themselves.  If we had categories like Category:Less-notable independent bands, I'd be all for it.  I don't think many others here would agree though... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reservoir Songs
Hi, just a note to say nice work saving Reservoir Songs from deletion. --Muchness 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob. Color me shocked that Crooked Fingers didn't have an article.  If you know anything more about them, please help! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to help but I don't know much about them, I'm more of an Archers fan. --Muchness 04:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

VfD->AfD template change
Good call on Encyclopedia Dramatica! I've moved the discussion, which I do as-and-when I find them. Eventually the idea is that all currently-referenced discussions should be at AfD…, and we can maybe remove some of those VfD… redirects, but it's a long-term and very slow project. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah! I didn't even realize it was good form to move the project pages like that, or I would have done it myself.  I'll keep it in mind for the future if your project crosses my watchlist again.  Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter Buck and "I Walked With a Zombie"
sorry 'bout the mix-up. Thanks for the link. Tytrain 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, and for welcoming me to the fold of administrators. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise and blocked a vandal (after I said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem sir! Good luck to you! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:You Say Party! We Say Die!
Since this is kinda getting beyond the scope of the talk page... Yeah, this is how I tend to close AfDs, but honestly this was a very borderline case between "keep" or "no consensus". I was trying to err on the side of caution. I realize it might be seen as making an article more likely to get nominated again... so I'll take your comment into consideration in the future.

If it makes you feel any better, the one time a decision of mine has ended up on WP:DRV it was because someone wanted me to say "no consensus" when I'd said "keep". So you're never going to please everyone... --W.marsh 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'm really not that bothered by it. I'm on AfD a lot myself, and sometimes some clarity on whether a article is closed one way or the other makes a difference later, that's all.  Seriously not that big a deal. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

LJ Drama AfD
Hi Jeff, I figured this would end up at deletion review however it was closed, and if you'd like to take it there I encourage you to do so. I'd be interested in the results. I did examine the prior keep vote, though a prior AfD does not alter the guidelines or criteria used in closing any subsequent AfDs. However, I do personally feel that later AfDs probably should bear a slightly higher "burden of proof" if they are to succeed, so this was one variable that pulled me in the direction of a "no consensus" judgment. As for verifiability, clearly the existence of the site and its various features are verifiable, but that's not the issue. What are sorely lacking are reliable secondary sources that characterize and describe LJ Drama. Without those, the article's prospects were very poor, and its potential scope extremely narrow. Regardless, the AfD met my typical definition of a supermajority for delete (normally I look for 66% of all good faith, reasoned votes), and I didn't find adequately extenuating circumstances to outweigh that supermajority. Babajobu 05:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

vote to keep
I was wondering on what basis you think the group is notable if the number of fans, downloads, et. al are yet to be verified, and nerdcore has been around for almost a decade?--Urthogie 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the arguments of the people above. WP:MUSIC is a guideline with a lot of flaws and I see no reason to see an article that appears to come close enough to notability to stick around. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats my question though, lets forget about WP:MUSIC for a bit, my question remains: what does make it notable.--Urthogie 15:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * GSW, the amount of downloads, the amount of internet attention. Have you read the other comments yet? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. The amount of downloads is not a verified number, the amount of internet attention is lesser than many other deleted web memes.  That just leaves GSW. Every group that comes out of GSW's web page can be an article?--Urthogie 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Many (most?) of the web memes that were deleted shouldn't have been due to WP:WEB being changed into something really horrible. And yes, if something's covered by GSW, I'd likely vote keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A blog about gaming seems barely appliable to gaming, let alone music.--Urthogie 17:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We respectfully disagree on that note. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Guess so. By the way, It'd be great if you'd help make WP:MUSIC better.--Urthogie 17:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tried. There are a lot of deletionist forces who seem to equate indie band with garage band which is frustrating. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What indie bands shouldnt be kept, in your opinion?--Urthogie 17:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One's with absolutely no attention, locally or nationally. If they do a regional tour and create a few albums, it shows they've been able to expand past their locality, and that's more than good enough for me.  The touring requirement is hell for many indie bands, there's no consistent idea as to what's a worthy label to make an adequate guideline, and the "major music magazine" requirement knocks off niche-magazines and technically doesn't allow things like newspaper coverage, which is dead wrong. I'd keep the majority of bands that can demonstrate that they've done more than rehearsed and played locally, or that have shown an effort to gain expanded fame (such as the band who you originally came here for).  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, they haven't sold a single album, or even made a single physical album, so I don'ts ee how they're even pursuing fame-- it seems like theyre pursuing internet notoriety more than anything else.--Urthogie 20:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess we have a much different view of the encyclopedia. What led you to being so inclusive with articles?--Urthogie 21:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mainly so many worthwhile articles being deleted. It's kinda pointless to create guidelines, ignore them for some articles, and then make them too strict for other worthy articles.  It's not only trying to be a typical encyclopedia, but trying to be something more, that whole "sum of knowledge" thing.  So I approach articles with one question:  "Why should this article be here?"  If I can't make a good rationalization as to why (and there are very few things that don't have a legitimate answer to that question), then it's probably not worth having. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't the sum of all knowledge concept overly idealistic? I mean, how can you learn anything when flooded with so much information?--Urthogie 09:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Isn't idealism why we're here? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Guess so. Different ideals though.--Urthogie 14:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Barnes
Thanks for catching that. I did indeed find revisions before the vandalism. I have restored the page and reverted the vandlaism. I apologize for any inconvenience. That particular vandal was creating a lot of nonsense articles so I guess I just assumed that this was one, but I will remember to be more careful. Academic Challenger 03:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No inconvienience, sometimes the mop gets shaky, no biggie. Thanks for the fix. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
'Too often, people will go there, see a band, and without thinking or researching, say "Yup, doesn't look notable, ooh WP:MUSIC, delete."' -I couldn't agree more. :) Keep up the great work! Madangry 20:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep fighting the good fight yourself! Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Summary
Thanks for your bold edit of this page. I was the one who prodded it, but I certainly don't mind your edit. While I didn't think it likely that someone would type out the extra word, redirects are cheap and maybe it'll help a few people in the future. Thanks again, and keep up the good work! E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Llamacon
Sorry, I'm running behind on the paperwork for DRV. This was going to be a note to let you know that I'd brought it back, but you've already spotted that. -Splash talk 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 14:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Crystal ballism
The AfD for Popaganda!!! is not based on notability, as you point out it is a notable band. But the album is not yet released and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In an industry as unstable as the music business, an album doesn't exist untill it's on the shelves. Ifnord 21:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So in your mind, any album not currently on the shelves today shouldn't be here? I'll note from the policy that you note (and I agree with!): "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced."  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If one read the article that's used as a source then one would see the band isn't even sure about the title. That's the problem with crystal ballism, what if the album changes name (as appears possible, if not likely, from the reference)? An encyclopedia is for what is - not what may be. Ifnord 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to reference their Myspace blog as a reliable source, but that's simply what the move button is for. It's obvious you're not going to come around on this, so it's worthless to keep going in circles on this, but I'd hope you'd reconsider. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Manny Ortez
It was tagged as a (CSD G1) speedy.-- Dakota ~  °  05:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you consider reversing that? It wasn't patent nonsense at all, but a well-documented (at least in the media) gaffe by a Presidential candidate.  I noticed it when a redirect to it went up for prod, and there's no reason why there shouldn't have been media references linked within. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you want to work on it? It was an obscure short context article and I don't see too much expansion potential. But if you want to want to work on it ok.-- Dakota ~  °  05:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure how "obscure" or "short context" a notable political gaffe that was covered in a variety of media is, but I'll be glad to try my hand at expansion further. Regardless of what it was, it certainly wasn't a speedy candidate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It will take me a few. I hope you can improve it.-- Dakota ~  °  05:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks in advance. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's restored. -- Dakota ~  °  06:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not delete the talk page. It is not in my deletion log. I believe it was empty.-- Dakota ~  °  06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * From the deletion log: 19:45, 15 March 2006 DakotaKahn deleted "Talk:Manny Ortez" (content was: ' ' discussion page of a deleted article).  I'm just not sure if there's anything there that's useful. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be late late getting back. Seems I'm not getting new message notices as I should. I missed it in the log on my look. Here it is the only edit beyond listing the db is this very colorful comment which is (Vandalism) -- Dakota ~  °  20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. Thanks for checking up on it for me. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Assistance requested elsewhere
After seeing your approach to the Joseph Sobran article, I thought I would ask you to lend your expertise at LewRockwell.com, Lew Rockwell, and Tom G. Palmer. Hey, if you're good at conflict resolution you should really love these! In all seriousness, though, thanks for pitching in at the Sobran article! Cheers, Dick Clark 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll do what I can, no promises though. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, of course. Thanks, Dick Clark 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems you think you're tuff
Pretty tuff words there at the Joe Sobran talk page.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaDreamlings (talk • contribs)
 * Huh? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I take the charge of vandalism very seriously. You have been distorting the facts on the LewRockwell.com page. It's easy to find small exerpts to back up a certain POV, but the fact is that the IHR is a group which argues that the Holocaust was conducted on far lesser scale than we currently consider it to have occured at, and IHR also argues that the Holocaust wasn't meant to exterminate Jews but only to put them into camps. Sobran's comments about Jews, found in http://www.marwenmedia.com/articles_images/SobranJewishFaction.html make it clear he is an anti-semite. Please do not distort these facts anymore. --TheDookieMan 22:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan
 * I have not been distorting any facts. For one, you continue to restore the incorrect assertations of WFB regarding Joseph Sobran, even with the facts being spelled out to you.  For another, I posted exactly what IHR claims to be, and you instead decide to restore an incorrect version false claiming what they say.  To accuse me of vandalism in the face of actual facts is incorrect, and will be dealt with on a different level if need be. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So you are threatening to use violence if I don't stop? --TheDookieMan 22:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan
 * I'll have admin intervention if that's what is necessary. Since you've again falsely accused me of vandalism, that is the route I'm forced to take. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may be so bold as to reply to User:TheDookieMan's original allegations: You are making a straw man argument here. User:Badlydrawnjeff has edited the article in question to bring it in line with the available sources. I don't believe that he is claiming that Sobran isn't an anti-semite, only that your repeated assertion regarding William F. Buckley's having labeled him as such is demonstrably false. No one is trying to "protect anti-semites." We're here to write an encyclopedia, and that means representing sources accurately. The aforementioned guideline states, Disputed edits can be removed immediately and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place after the relevant passage. Dick Clark 22:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Dick, and would add that even if nobody disputed that Sobran was an anti-Semite and deserved to be reviled, Wikipedia is not the place for doing that. As it is, there is probably a fairly wide variety of opinion over what is and isn't anti-Semitic.  St. Jimmy 02:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral language
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: '''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.' Comment on content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, Rogerman
 * Excuse me? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

April Furs Day? Will it happen again?
While I don't have time to go to 4chan's forums, I do read about it. April Furs Day happened last year. Do you think 4chan will do it again? April 1st is coming up very soon! DyslexicEditor 16:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Damned if I know. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

From Forums and Notability
I'm not sure I understadn you comment here? - brenneman {L}  12:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28websites%29
 * From WP:OR: In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re : Your closing of the popcorn bag AfD
Let's just say, I'm warming up the "rough consensus" engine in the morning. =P I've changed it to keep after re-reading the debate. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hah, no problem. Didn't mean to be a pain, just trying to figure out what the thought process is sometimes.  Cheers! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's alright - discussion is good. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Flies Inside The Sun
Hi Badlydrawnjeff, I came here after seeing your vote on the AFD for Flies Inside The Sun, and then read your thoughts on WP:MUSIC. It's great to find someone who feels the confines of WP:MUSIC are too restricting, as this is a view I share. I've been creating entries for many New Zealand artists from the 1990s - mostly those involved with the 'free-noise' scene. Back in the day, I really dug this scene, though following its nebulous personnel changes was a hefty task (especially before the internet was in wide use). Wikipedia is great for this task, but I'm fearing these bands are too obscure for WP:MUSIC and the deletionists who use it. Anyway, I was just dropping by the say "keep up the good work". Cnwb 05:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's still in the back of my head regarding how to deal with it, but I think prod can help a bit.  Still trying, nonetheless. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 11:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology, but also a note
I apologise, my comment was perhaps outside the bounds, of WP:AGF, although I still believe yours is too. That said, please don't remove my comments from a talk page, I don't think that's best practise to be honest. Once again, I apologise, though. Steve block talk 11:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should have just done the strikethrough. My bad. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 11:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

re: DRV for myg0t
Several days ago, you recommended undeleting the article for myg0t. I'm not sure to what extent you based your opinion on the prior AFD discussions. Since your comment, I discovered that the second AFD discussion in question had been vandalized by an anon user between the closure of the discussion and the start of the deletion review. The vandalism obscured several valid comments and made the strict vote-count appear to be a "no consensus" decision. If the prior AFD discussion played any role in your decision, could I ask you to review the unvandalized version of the AFD discussion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, honestly, not much. AfD can get it wrong, and I based it on that. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice Work
Hey, I just wanted to say you've done some nice work on the Elephant 6 articles (adding infoboxes, cleanup, etc.)--Isotope23 17:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It feels never ending though, haha.  So...many...albums.... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Brian G. Crawford
Regarding your comment on this user's page, I draw your attention to the section "Who do you think you are?". Note in particular the reference to the quote on his (other) user page.

Also bear in mind that his attitude towards such criticisms was to say "You seem to have confused me for someone who cares what you think. It was an honest mistake, I'm sure." then tell me not to use his talk page. Which seems pretty much to confirm that he has his own agenda, and plays the rules selectively when it suits this.

Fourohfour 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta
Please reconsider your vote on that. My research suggests that this person is just a self promoter and has added information to Amazon Wikipedia and other websites to create a false impression of notability (see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents). Thanks Arniep 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, someone has posted this link to the Rikki Lee Travolta page as a source. This page originates at PRWeb which describes itself as "a free online press release distribution service" and encourages users to "Write compelling stories. Your news release should capture the attention and imagination of the editors, journalists and writers that use this service as a resource for their work.". The page mentions a film that Rikki Lee Travolta was in called Camelot: Excalibur directed by Donna DeCarl and that the DVD will be released in 2004 by Abracadabra Productions. This is Donna DeCarl's IMDb entry here. Abracadabra productions are a Wedding photography company here. There is no film that exists called Camelot: Excalibur. This is more proof that this person is a self publicist. Please don't allow Wikipedia to be used for free advertising. Thanks Arniep 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Self promoter or not, I still think this person reaches basic notability standards, so I'll be keeping my vote as is. Thanks, though. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your Message
I didn't authorize User:Fourohfour to speak on my behalf, and I truly resent his comments. As to your message, I'd like you to know that since you frequently remove my PROD tags and vote against me in deletion debates, I certainly do take your opinions into consideration. There are several articles that I haven't taken to AfD, even though I think they're worthy of deletion, because I suspect you'd prevent them from being deleted. I don't know if that's the kind of response you wanted, but it's true. Brian G. Crawford 23:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you'll note I had nothing to say against him. But I'm honestly surprised and appreciative of this reply, and I'll keep that in mind before getting frustrated with some of your tagging.  Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Can someone please clarify what on earth is being discussed here and refer me to the comments in question? I am not aware of ever having spoken on Brian G. Crawford's behalf. Fourohfour 19:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Joe Sobran
Look, I don't know how much you know about Joe Sobran, but he is an anti-semite, racist, and homophobe. Whether or not (and I'm not saying you do) think those things are okay, the fact is that his article should reflect the fact that many have stated that. I think the article in general should refelct a holistic consideration of Sobran, specifically concentrating on what makes him significant to the greater public. Those are the justificiations for my edits. Rogerman 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman
 * The article DOES reflect that, that's all. The article clearly lists the situation, as well as a FACTUAL basis for the accusations, including who said what, and plenty of links to back it up. Your version, unfortunately, makes a false claim about what WFB said, and is not nearly as good a version as DCM's are. I do suggest expanding the National Review section if you feel it's not properly addressing it, but you should probably explain why WITHOUT adding POV edits. Whether he's an anti-semite or a green man from Mars is irrelevant, we need to be factual and well-sourced to make such claims. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry badlydrawnjeff, I didn't see your note on Rogerman's talk page until after I reported his 3rr violation. I do agree that we need to work on coming to some long-term solution here, however. Cheers, Dick Clark 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob. We'll figure something out. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

 * Oh, wow, my first barnstar! Thanks, and good work on the rewrite to you too! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Guy
I noticed that you have had some trouble with User:Rogerman. Please observe his recent activity in the Billy Graham Edit History. This editor is concerned about antisemitism, as are most sane people, but he is not concerned about NPOV, as can be seen by his predilection for labelling biography subjects as controversial in the lead paragraphs of their articles. I looked at his user talk page and noticed that he has been asked by others not to do this, as well, and has been generally problematic in his crusade to spin other biographies with his POV. Joseph Sobran and Lew Rockwell have been hit, and I'm wondering long this continues before action is taken by admin? Projection70 03:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This entire thing has gotten annoying, and I have personal suspicions at present. Oh well. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

More Sobran Spillover
I really resent that Jeff. Are you Projection70? After today coming to the point where we can work in a more cooperative fashion I would ask that we refrain from personal attacks. I quoted TheDookieMan because I agreed with his point.

Now let me ask you a question

Is your vision for the article one where all of the accusations of anti-semitism and all of their refuations are listed? Or should we just mention the accusation of anti-semitism that led to his firing? --Rogerman 04:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman
 * I replied over there, let's keep the discussion there without the false accusations, please. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just sayin'
Awesome user name.--M @ r ē ino 20:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hah, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Afd section on your user page
May I suggest that you rephrase this a bit? When I first read the "Why should this article be here?", I assumed you meant Wikipedia. After reading the rest of your page it seems you mean "Why should this article be on Afd?" or something to that effect.

(As a side-comment, and I'm not trying to start a war or anything, I personally like the first interpretation a lot better.) -- Hirudo 22:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I meant "here" as in Wikipedia. I see what you're saying, though, but the idea was for people to approach an article saying "This is why we should have this article on Wikipedia," y'know? Maybe I'll rephrase a little bit, I never saw it that way.  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed. I guess the tone of that question suggest an exclusionist attitude to me, which seemed to clash with your relatively inclusionist behaviour; that's probably why I thought you intended the other meaning. I suppose this shows yet again that written text isn't as unambiguous as we'd like. Hirudo 22:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The chase
Okay, I'm coming here to cut to the chase since we seem to be arguing over the top of each other and not actually listening to what we're saying. I think the meme guidelines are insane because if we apply them to any other topic, and believe me people will, they'll allow anything. Now internet related articles are a hard area, but I'd rather we had a list of people or sites who were considered reliable sources, rather than just allow a meme once it is a year old. A meme shouldn't get an article just because everyone is doing it, it should get an article because it's been reported that everyone is doing it. That's my opinion. I think that's what being an encyclopedia means. That's my take on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I'm going to post this at WP:MEME too, but I'm dropping it here too because I'm that sort of bloke. I would like to know why an article like Icy Hot Stuntaz requires no third party sources when WP:V states that Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Appreciate it if we can at least get on the same page on this. Steve block The wikipedian meme 10:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I promise I'm not trying to talk past you here. Here's my deal, as I noted over there: primary sources are a-okay in extreme circumstances, per WP:RS.  Verifiability has never been an issue on internet memes, only notability.  I forget where I posted that, but it's out there.  I don't like the proposal as written right now, but given the ups and downs of internet meme AfDs combined with the same debates over and over, that's where I think this is necessary.  The "internet meme guidelines" wouldn't be applied to, say, the pets of wikipedians.  That can be made clear.  But it seems like the concern continues to come from an area that isn't an issue from this end. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi I'm a new Wikipedian from Natick... just popped in to say hello to a neighbor:

Merlinus (talk)

I was recently married to my lovely wife; We have lived together for several years already... -
 * Hi I Am Marc:
 * We love cats (3 currently own us)... Jeffy(15), Echo(6) & Gizmo(3). All sleep with us in the big bed and no room to move an inch.
 * I was Disabled in a 1993 (Coma)/ and am very slowly recovering. It's tough going out sometimes, though with friends I still do. I have a few supportive friends.
 * I am an "Unenrolled voter." Democrat/ Republicans, I don't care, whoever serves makes my life better in the long run I vote for!
 * Avid reader. Has collection of many hundreds of rare books. Especially Science Fiction and Fantasy.
 * Avid Music collector (2,500 albums)...mostly bootlegs...mostly rare bootlegs...Stones, Kinks, Clapton, Beatles. and solos!

I am what I am I'm strongly opinionated about disabled peoples' rights and jobs for American citizens who have trouble finding minimum wage jobs in my state today and support Universal health care, I would be dead if I did not have it. I am an idiot about Internet social skills. I hope that the Immigration Reform bill will protect disabled citizens who wish to work like myself first before considering allowing new people to come here. I was searching for an internet forum to be my outlet to express my needs, but found that Wikipedia is not best suited for that. I'm brushing up on Wikipedia's rules of conduct, and slowly starting to begin contributing again. -- Current book and CD' I own hundreds of rare books


 * Current Book Jack Whyte: "Uther"
 * Current CD Faves:
 * Warren Zevon... "Life'll Kill Ya"
 * Howlin' Wolf: "Greatest Hits"
 * Latest Flick: "Charles II: The Last King"

-  Merlinus (talk)
 * Welcome aboard! Anything you can help in regards to music articles would be very, very useful. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

- I am not worthy. I bow down before you. Music in Wormtown has not been the same since the passing of Emil Haddad, but life goes on. Be well! __ Just plain Bill 17:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ( old f@rt curmudgeon on Upper Burncoat)

Mike Shopshire AfD
So since there was already an existing article at the correct spelling Mike Shropshire (which isn't up for deletion), and I erged the Mike Shopshire content there... would you mind changing your vote to a redirect to Mike Shropshire for consensus?--Isotope23 23:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The redirect will happen no matter what. I don't want the vote to be construed that I want the information to be deleted, which is what the AFD was about - content. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough... I'm just saying it's virtually impossible (unless an admin went totally out of process) the info could get deleted since it is at another page that isn't up for AfD.--Isotope23 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not risk it. I certainly understand where you're going with it, though. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hogging (Sexual)
Taking a look I've restored your latest revision, though I think it might get prod'd or request for speedy again, but its up as of this moment, thanks for the message -- Tawker 14:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I tagged it before you ever added your name to the edit history of the talk page. Check for yourself. I did things properly. Honestly, if I'd seen your signature anywhere on that article, I would've ignored it. I hear enough objections from you without getting anywhere near your pet projects. Brian G. Crawford 16:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, it's not my pet project, but thanks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gypsy_Sun_Experience
Hi. I have posted additional material for review on the AfD. I don't think the band every really existed. 
 * Thanks. If anything, your evidence makes me want to vote keep more.  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your user page
Hey I take my hat off to you for your user page - too many idiots on wiki stay anons or hide their identities probably because they don't have the balls to stand by their edits... here they can be big and tough because they can hide! But you, like I lay your full name and it all out and I respect that. BUT, just be a little careful with your external links, esp to your blogs. There are some real serious psychos here and you don't wanna hand them your personal life on a plate. I link to my personal site, company sites and my anti-scientology website but avoid my real personal stuff. Just thought I'd drop you that line anyway. My "anti-passions" (if you like) are scientology and bush so your blogs were a fun read :) good luck with the job hunting too :) - Gl e n  TC (Stollery)  17:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. Yeah, there are freaks, but if someone really wants to track me down, they'll do it anyway.  It's too easy.  Anyway, thanks for looking! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)