User talk:Bdj/Archive6

The Tony Danza sex move
I just put this up for undeletion at DRV. Please come and discuss. Thank you. Billy Blythe 20:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't be voting to overturn on this one, but I suggest making it a redirect to Donkey punch and slogging it out there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm rather surprised, considering you voted to endorse closure on the Carlsbad grimple, which seems to be much more of a neologism. Is it perhaps the misogyny? Billy Blythe 21:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just don't think the Danza has the same cache to it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please check what User:Sean Black has done. He's accused me of trolling and apparently unilaterally removed the Tony Danza from DRV. Is this kosher? You've been around the block a few times and fought the good fight. Any advice? Please check my talk page and his, and DRV. Thanks a lot. Billy Blythe 01:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already been discussed to death. Donkey punch is an essentially nonexistent "sex move" of debatable importance, the Tony Danza thing is a joke based on it. It's been the subject of debate for as long as I can remember, and the creation of the separate articles appears to be a reaction against the consensus which has finally prevailed at the main article.  Wikipedia is not urban dictionary, still less Uncyclopaedia.  I suggest you try working on subjects of more obvious merit.  How is the article on your home town?  Your favourite composer or musician?  Guy 19:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lloyd Levitin
I have added a comment countering TruthbringerToronto 's argument on the Articles_for_deletion/Lloyd_Levitin page. Please read it and consider changing your vote. Thanks. --Ineffable3000 02:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, but I don't see myself chaning my mind. Thanks, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Aussie Pollie Stubs
I am very concerned about the recent deletion of around 50 stubs on Australian politicians. These articles lay the foundation for what Wikipedia will one day be..."a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language" (Jimmy Wales). This however will not happen overnight. I draw parallels to my own project on Central Coast, New South Wales articles. 90% of the suburbs are stubs. But these stubs encourage anyone to edit. Even trivial information has a place on Wikipedia. It should not worry YOU if the articles contained very little information, but you should be happy that the articles had information. In many cases these articles only needed an infobox and they would have been reasonably adequate. In closing I ask anyone who has supported their deletion, that you reconsider your vote by visiting this page: Deletion review/Log/2006 September 30 Todd661 10:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you paid attention to your spamming, you'd see I'm already on your side. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No I did pay attention to your support. But I felt we were painfully outnumbered and I just wanted to let you know that you had a supporter out there. I feel I have gotten in a bit over my head and will probably annoy a few people over this, but it would be well worth it. Todd661 10:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A Top Tip for you
Have you seen User:Werdnabot? A handy talk page archiving tool. Guy 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have. I've never really been a fan of how it does it, though, and I like to have a little more control over it.  I looked into it when Werdna first put it out there, not for me.  But thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

!!!!!!!!!


 ßott e  siηi  (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I admit it, I laughed a little louder than I probably should have at this. Thanks for the smile. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:1FAPQ
I hope I didn't come off as dismissive in the slightest on the talk of this new page. Any idea that can contribute to FA output is a good thing, AFAIAC. I've just thought we have a lot of "help me" pages (if not always directed toward FA). We need more "do it" and "here's how to do it" pages. Marskell 00:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * no no, not at all. I put the feelers out for input, nothing more nothing less.  You make an excellent point about the "do it" as opposed to "how to," which is important.  I'll flesh it out more there, for sure, but don't worry about how you come off - we're all in the same boat. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:John Miller (film)
Done. enochlau (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sore loser
I see you've removed the proposed deletion tag that I affixed to the article sore loser. Of course it's expandable, but you really think that it has a possibility of being turned into even a decent encyclopedia article? Apart from the fact that it is a dictdef, it is unlikely that it will ever include more than original research, and even more unlikely to find reliable sources. I gave it some thought when I changed the db to a prod, and decided that it didn't seem salvageable. As I see it, there are three options: an afd, a proposed merge into sportsmanship or violence in sports, or an attempt to clean it up. What are your thoughts? Picaroon9288 19:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we can clean it up further. I see no reason to delete, and I think it's the exact opposite of sportsmanship, so a merge doesn't seem sensible. I've been a little bogged down with rl stuff, and there's a significant amount of time during my day that I can't do research, so I'll see what I can dredge up this weekend. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it has been redirected already. Picaroon9288 20:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I dunno if I agree with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth
What the hell was it anyways, I googled it, saw Wikipedia's article on the top of the list. It was suggested by another user that I take a look due to notability concerns - no afd notice on the talk so boom alt-d it was. Is there something going on there? -- Tawker 04:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, googled it and looked past the first result (ok, my rule is if Wikipedia is the first article on a website name, and all I can say is wow, how the hell didn't I hear of it.  It's ED but crazier... (/me slaps himself for not looking past the first result, google's result counter is so screwed up now, I had something like 50 results on my original search...) -- Tawker 04:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's nothing like ED, unless you have no idea what ED's about. Wikitruth is all about criticizing Wikipedia; ED wouldn't care if Wikipedia sank beneath the waves tomorrow.  They devote more bandwidth to mocking 4chan than Wikipedia, to cite one of many examples.  Sorry to butt in on your talk page, badlydrawnjeff, but I had to set that record straight. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not a problem. I've never seen much of Wikitruth except that the seem to have the press coverage that ED, to this point, lacked.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Referencing images
Just a reminder, in the DRV entry you just put in. If you want to link an image, put a colon in front of the name. Without the colon, it tries to include the image.

So,  Image:Teddygrahams.jpg  gives Image:Teddygrahams.jpg

While   gives

-- Fan-1967 18:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why that was broken. Thanks for that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, now after that picture I'm hungry. Fan-1967 18:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Jihad
Because of your input on previous music AfDs, I was hoping you would take a look at this article and provide your thoughts on whether or not it meets WP:MUSIC its latest AfD. PT (s-s-s-s ) 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

DRV
Hi,

Looks fine now, Jeff. :) You know what you're doing, so perhaps it was simply a back-up in the cached version on the server or your machine.  As you probably know, you can clear your machine's cached version with CTRL + F5 on a PC.  Best wishes, Xoloz 15:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not sure what I did, but thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC
I know I am violating WP:CIVIL, but I'm not caring at this point. I've seen you on a lot of these AfDs, and I know you know your stuff. Aren't you sick of the non-music fans muddling up the music articles and trying to knock off things that are notable, but they don't know anything about? Something needs to be done, but besides catfights in the AfDs, I really don't know what else to do. PT (s-s-s-s ) 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I get very, very tired of it, yes, but I don't want you getting yourself blocked because of getting heated up over it, you're doing too good of work in saving some of these things to get a bad reputation over it. Trust me, you don't want a poor reputation.  Just be militant about sources, challenge people who claim that something isn't notable, and you'll be fine.  DRV is your friend in a lot of these cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. Block or no block, I think it's too late for my reputation! ;) PT (s-s-s-s ) 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

IAR
I agree with your feelings about IAR. In fact, I'd love to see it gone for good. I think it encourages disruptive behavior and rogue admins. But the question on Atlant's RfA seems loaded: if he says he's for it, he gets oppose votes like yours. If he says he's against it, he gets oppose votes for not understanding that official policy is official policy and it's not up to us to decide whether we like it or not. If he doesn't answer it at all, he gets oppose votes for that. It's a catch-22, isn't it? I mean, the most reasonable reply seems to be that it should only be used carefully and only in certain rare circumstances. Which is what he said, and he still got oppose votes.

It's not my RfA, and I'm not personally invested in it in any way, but it just seems kind of unfair. Kafziel Talk 14:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. See my vote on Cazaroth's RfA for a comparison - there's a definite difference in attitude, and a willingness to "rely" on the policy is especially troublesome to me.  I know plenty of admins I respect who don't always go by the book, and the ones I don't are the ones most likely to IAR and cause trouble and issues and strife.  It's made me more cognizent of the situation, and that's where my opposition comes from in this case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But he didn't say he would rely on it in his reply to the question. You said that, in your opposing comments. Only after that did he say that he'd be willing to use it because it's an official policy. I don't think he's a bigger fan of IAR than either of us are; he always participates in discussions and does a lot of investigation when it's needed. I've never seen him arbitrarily disrupt a process. He's a wikignome. Kafziel Talk 14:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only go off of what he said, not much else. If he's a Wikignome as you said, it concerns me even more due to a lack of work in this area and a small (nonexistent?) record to work off of.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's actually a more valid concern. Personally, I like wikignome administrators. We've got more than a thousand admins, so not all of them need to be in the spotlight of AfD and AIV all the time. It would be nice to have a few admins who just quietly fix the little things that need doing. To me, the most important qualities are intelligence, responsible editing, and a regular presence here. But I know a lot of people don't feel gnomes need a mop, so I guess I could see a lack of support on that basis. Kafziel Talk 14:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Make Way For Ducklings
I've seen you around the wiki some and I had hoped that you would be able to help me out with a subject that may be particularly close to your heart. I'm guessing that since you're an aspiring children's librarian from Central Mass. that you've probably read Make Way For Ducklings many times. If not, I apologize and you may disregard this if you like. Regardless, MWFD is currently up for peer review here, and I was hoping you could take a look at the article and give me some feedback at the review. Thanks so much! &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 16:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't say how happy I am that this is getting cleaned up this well. I'll definitely take a look at this and see if I can add anything.  Thanks for the heads-up! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Kitty-Yo
Sure, I'll restore it--but you'll have to add in why it's notable. (The present version of the article makes no claim to notability.) -- Merope Talk 18:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes, talk about a stub. I'll get to it, thanks.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re : A favor to ask
Will do, I'll need some bit of time for me to go through the whole thing, so the details will come a bit later. Thanks for your patience! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, take your time. I appreciate it! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that the article may be around good article standard, but there is quite some work to do before going for FAC. Another editor think it's around B-class.
 * The length of the article is relatively short than most FAs. If you can expand it further, it'll be good, but that should not compromise on your chances for it to become FA. (See Eric Bana)
 * The article needs some copyediting. "Other ventures and post-exploitation" section noticably needs some work in its flow.
 * Ensure that your reference section is standardised in a consistent manner. Take care of dates, write them in a single format (I earned an oppose once for that). WP:CITE provides some guidelines for this.
 * AndyZ has an excellent semi-auto script to run through the article for nitpicks, see User:AndyZ/Suggestions for more information. It is not nessecary to follow all the advice given, but you will find it useful in sniffing out errors that human eyes may have missed.

That's all I can really comment for now. Happy writing, and all the best on getting the article to Featured Article status! :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 13:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks a lot, I'll do some work on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dyke tyke
SchmuckyTheCat 17:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Jihad
Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT (s-s-s-s ) 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Axe Murder Boyz
All set. You be good to go, lad. :) - Lucky 6.9 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You da man. Thanks for knowing a lot more about I did about the subject. Good save! - Lucky 6.9 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Emmalina
Hey Jeff, I appreciate the WP:BIO argument, but the debate ran a lot deeper than that. The deletes were generally of the opinion that she's a nn former youtube contributor who enjoyed a brief time in the public eye but hasn't achieved lasting notability, the keeps were mainly technical "meets WP:BIO on press coverage" ops. The press coverage clause of WP:BIO reads:


 * "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)",

and I think it's often forgotten that just being in a few online news stories, regardless of source, needs a bit more qualification than mere proof of their existence to be identified as both "multiple" and "non-trivial".

Keep votes based on "bothered by 3rd nomination" don't address the issue. But even looking at the whole picture there was a significant majority on the delete side (obviously it's not a vote, but we're talking a 70/30 split) and overall I felt the deletion and redirect to Youtube (although Notable YouTube memes could be a more appropriate target, what do you think?) was the right outcome and reflection of community opinion. Hope you understand, thanks for getting in touch. Deizio talk 15:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that this should have been kept. I don't know if there's an "appropriate target" outside of her own article.  If I decide to DRV it, I'll let you know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Danny Phantom
I closed the page as a keep because it was obvious that Danny Phantom (character) is notable, and there was clearly no consensus for its deletion or merger. However, a significant portion of the !voters said that merging the minor characters was okay. I'm not going to do this unilaterally; I'm going to try to do it via Talk:Danny Phantom, where I can hopefully get a group of willing volunteers to agree upon what should be merged. Feel free to weigh in- I'll be posting on that talk page shortly. Ral315 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. My main complaint was the implication from your comment that you were going to just up and do it.  If you're seeking further consensus, I have no room to complain, so thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/MONGO
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

and are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 02:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As expected. Whatever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Song article
When you remove a prod template, do you worry about the reason given? The stated reason (regarding "Beautifully Broken") was that it was false (there is a long, agonizing history of imaginative users deciding for themselves what Ashlee's next single will be, producing no end of confusion for readers). Yet you removed the template saying that you "assumed" it was accurate. Who knows how long the thing is going to survive at this rate? Everyking 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. I saw a few rumors here and there when I did a Google and felt it needed a better look and the benefit of the doubt.  How long will it survive?  At worst, five more days, and at best, perhaps we get a better article out of it.   BTW, the note on the prod when removed?  "nn song."  Not "hoax," not "idle worthless speculation."  Even if it's not the next single, I don't necessarily believe "nn song" to be true.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, well in that case someone must have changed my original deletion reason, so it's no fault of yours. I don't think the song is non-notable either, but it is definitely not the next single (in fact there will not be another single from that album at all). Someone could write an article about the song omitting the "next single" stuff and I'd be happy with it (I've written and defended similar articles on non-singles in the past, but they've all been deleted), but seeing as this article is based on something made-up and anyone who invested the time to write a better article would probably just have to watch it get deleted through AfD anyway, I think the best solution is for it to just be promptly deleted. Everyking 03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi; It might be better to use the edit summary to narrowly and specifically describe your edit, not to characterize the editor you are responding to. The edit summary is not a good vehicle for dialogue, and can lead to misunderstandings. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no thanks. It accurately described the situation, and I'll continue to do so if need be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, accurately describing the situation is still poor dispute resolution. I think this may be one of those cases.  Of course, you're welcome to ignore my advice...  I like to ask myself whether the goal is to be right, or to resolve a situation in the most congenial manner.  I know you and MONGO don't get along, but I've seen you both use language that tends to aggravate the situation.  If you don't believe me, and you don't believe Tom Harrison, try any authority on dispute resolution - people have studied this stuff, and found some things out.  Some things work; other don't.  I wish you luck in this particular dispute, as I agree that banning links to ED is quite stupid.  Please don't screw up the cause you're working for by using language that exacerbates personal conflicts.  Good dispute resolution strategies exist, and they work. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, that's the worst part of this. I know you're 100% right here, and yet the dispute resolution simply didn't work.  Someone commented over at AN/I about this, and it appears to be true - the 'no action taken" for the obvious abuse of power has nly made it clearer that more will occur.  What's left?   If lies aren't going to be dealt with, what else can be done? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I understand which statements in particular you're talking about. I would suggest that providing a rebuttal to the statements in question in the appropriate place will work towards neutralizing the effect of those statements, which I agree are inaccurate.  You probably won't get MONGO to say "yeah, that was wrong, I take it back".  You don't need that either.  Anyone reading up on the situation will read what he said, read your rebuttal, decide who's giving a more accurate protrayal of the facts, and that'll be that.
 * If you want to get specific about specific facts, I would focus very intently on one at a time. It should be easy to establish, for instance, whether any finding of fact was unfavorable as to your intentions.  If it's true, then we can say which one.  Etc, for the various points you want to tackle.  The trick is to not get distracted by any side issue or by any kind of ad hominem - in either direction.  Dedicated focus is a powerful tool in such a situation, as is a willingness to be seen taking abuse without dishing any back.  It makes you look much better if you consistently turn the other cheek to ad hominems, all the while quietly and calmly repeating clear facts, and insisting on focused answers.  If he treats you like a dog, and you treat him like a prince anyway, you gain a huge upper hand.  That's one approach, anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, accusing Ryan of "trying to bait you", even if you're correct, is counterproductive, and makes you look bad. Looking good matters a lot here.  Most of our status at WP is based on reputation.  Just before Ryan's comment that you replied to by calling him out as "baiting", I attempted to discuss the subject about which you'd asked.  Now I know I'm not an arbitrator, but I hope you know that I'm not baiting you.  Could I persuade you to reply to the content of my comments, and please try not to even discuss whether or not someone is "baiting" you?  From where I'm standing, such accusations look just as bad as people accusing you of trolling.  Let's get this to work out, instead of getting it to blow up worse, please? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ryan and I have a...history. Let's put it that way.  It's one thing to have an issue with MONGO, which seems to stem from perceptions of associations that no longer exist and have been blown out of proportion anyway.  The other option was to try and get some administrator intervention regarding repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, but I know better than to think that would work.  In this case, I had one desire - for Ryan to stop, and it appears to have worked.  Now, I know you're not baiting me, and I'm hoping MONGO is willing to take you up on your offer, but I'm no longer all that worried about reputation here.  Those who actually bother to get to know me know what I'm about, and there's a stark minority who's reduced to making things up to try and skew perception in an opposite direction.  Again, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do, but I'd hope that taking constant abuse isn't supposed to be one of them.  It's ironic enough given who it's coming from already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not baiting anyone, I wasn't involved in the ArbCom case and I think my motives (to protect MONGO and other users from ongoing efforts to harass them in real life) are quite clear from my conduct. I'll leave it at that. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

DRV w/Zoe
It's extremely hard to continue to assume good faith when every single one of the discussion contributions I see from you are "Keep", regardless of the merits of the arguments against such behavior. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Replying at Zoe. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We got off on the wrong foot, and the bad blood has continued. I hereby pledge to at least try to be less snarky with you.  User:Zoe|(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And the same here. Good luck with everything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

talking with MONGO
Hi, just noticed that you are attempting to talk to Mongo. It would be highly advisable to stop as your behaviour looks much like harrassment. Just some friendly advice before things get out of hand.-Localzuk(talk) 21:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It does? Wow.  No, but thanks for the unnecessary warning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm replying to your "what now?" question on my talk page. I read the conversation you linked to, and I think I'd recommend backing off for a bit, and let's talk about what you're after here. You contend that MONGO said some untrue stuff about you, and you'd like him to somehow acknowledge your complaint as valid, and do something appropriate. If my understanding that far is wrong, please let me know.

Reading these conversations, I don't see MONGO recognizing which particular statement you're saying is inaccurate, and why. He seems to be maintaining that he's only paraphrased what ArbCom found. You seem to see it differently, so why not explain to me, here or on my talk page, which particular statement or statements you'd like to see repudiated? If you have a whole list, pick two or three. If you dispassionately present a very specific complaint, about a specific thing MONGO said, with clear and impersonal logic, then you give him something a lot more concrete to respond to. If you present it in a way that he can work with, and that will also bring about what he wants, which is apparently to Create Space, that might go over well. How does that sound - we'll talk about what your goal is, and maybe I can approach MONGO as a third party when you've got your case ready to present in a way that will look to him like a solution - sound cool? I mean, if he really just refuses to deal with you at all, there's probably nothing to do but move on and chalk it up to Ain't Life Funny Sometimes, but I have more faith in MONGO than that. I'm open to working via email, too, if that would help. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I've received your email. I can only be online for a minute now, but I will get back to you in a few hours. Thanks for your patience; I'm confident we'll get this sorted out. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you on IRC? I'm in #wikipedia as gtbacchus. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Kroger Babb
Sure thing! Again, great article!  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 14:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your nice comment on my talk page
These sorts of disputes detract from the very good work almost all of us try to do in creating and maintaining neutral valid page space while keeping our personal convictions intact. I'm not that terribly wiki political and I rarely post on political page space unless it's vandalism related (I watch all US Presidents for example). In this case, I saw Robert West's notice on the BLP noticeboard, read up on the controversy, and tried to come in to calm things down. You know it's funny; I'm not sure if you and I agree or disagree on political philosophy, based on posts and conversations to date. Perhaps that's how it should be. Call on me if I can be of assistance. BusterD 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I was curious, I spent a few minutes this morning looking at a sampling of your multitudinous contributions. Groovy. If you wish, I encourage you to glance at mine. I notice that we have little overlap, I'm very much focused on biography and military history; while you tend to focus more on popular culture and music. Based on my cursory reading it is my preliminary opinion that we probably don't agree on the merits of many issues, yet we share a loyalty to wikiprocess. I wonder if I might call on you from time to time to help with intrinsic bias. It would be great to find someone here I frequently disagree with, but who I grow to trust nonetheless. Feel free to call on me if I can ever be of any assistance. BusterD 15:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One more tiny request. Could you look at Take point? I recently rescued the article as "walk point' from AfD with the support of a couple of strangers, but I want to make sure the popular derivative "on point" is properly supported/explained. I'm a bit old to be up. Is that something you could help? BusterD 15:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look and comment over there. No problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I talked to a rapper friend of mine (not well known, but a serious figure in music), and he believed I was incorrect about the folk etymology of the idiom "on point", and suggested that the root was more like the idiom "on message" much like the traditional use of the phrase. Since I've heard conflicting explanations from figures I respect, I'm not sure what is in the article is correct. In addition, I'm getting into OR territory, aren't I? If you happen across the answer, I owe you good beer. BusterD 00:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By "folk etymology," do you mean the more current usage that you've been trying to work with? Because, to be honest, that's what I thought you were referring to already.  I have no doubts at all that this guy is spot on in the current usage, but I'll be damned if I know where to start with it right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And there's no reason why you must make any extreme effort on my behalf. My intention in asking your assistance was that I was hoping someone has written about the phrase in popular culture sources, sources I'm certain to be less familiar with than yourself. I'm still looking for some firmer written sourcing for the etymology I first believed correct. No biggie. I've got lots of much bigger fish frying right now, but I wanted to put this detail to bed, so to speak. BusterD 00:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm glad to help where i can, if I can track anything down, I'll be sure to add it and drop you a note in the meantime.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Walter Andrew Stephenson
Please see. Thank you. BenBurch 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Emmalina
Hi,

I thought about that, but several different deleted versions of the article contain personal information. Any restoration would need to be selective only, requiring me to comb through diff-by-diff. So, the answer is, "at least not for a while." Given that it will take at least a few days to do the restore properly, I think its probably best if discussion begins anew (with the latest bit of history still available) and a rewrite basically from scratch is attempted. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Jeff. As I've noted on the Emmalina talk page, the article was deleted, the deletion was endorsed and even a second DRV which at the very least put words in my mouth as to why the article was deleted still failed to overturn the result. We can't call this one over and move on? Deizio</FONT> talk 02:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. Since it never should have been deleted to begin with... --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your feelings are pretty clear on that one ;) <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 03:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Watchlisting RfA's
Hey, I was really curious about your comment: "I have a number of RfAs watchlisted that have yet to exist. Since I've missed a couple of important RfA's recently, I'd sure like to know how you do that. If you're willing to share your secrets you could reply here, on my Talkpage, or via email...whatever. BTW - I LOL'd about "he did something incredilby vile...but I can't remember..." :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hahah! It's actually really simple, because the MediaWiki software allows us to watchlist articles that don't exist yet.  So all you have to do is follow the template.  I just plug Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ into the address bar, and plug in random users who don't have RfAs.  It's a little harder if people have failed, because there's no consistency to second nomination targets, but if you know people you feel strongly in either direction about, it just makes the RfA pop up on your watchlist the minute someone nominates them.  You can do it with any article - everything that's redlinked on my userpage is watchlisted, for instance, so I know if someone creates an article I'm interested in.  Very useful! --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I'm not an especially sophisticated user, and you just saved me a lot of time and frustration trying to suss it out myself. Happy editing. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Glad to help! --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, the owner of this talk page might have a few pre-watchlists on his second RFA as well. Though the first one went fairly well, and I suppose a diversity of opinions is usually good... --Interiot 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, I know the first name to add then! BTW - Interiot, I love Tool2, you do great work. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm fairly certain they come with pre-approved opposes, too, haha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the subject, you said "I have a number of RfAs watchlisted that have yet to exist. This was one of them, which means that [user] had apparently done or supported an action that I found incredibly vile and unfit". Any chance I could find out if I'm on that list? :D Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * plunk* You are now! d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL
I actually like you a lot. I think a few zealous retentionists can keep the deletionist majority honest - I think it's a great idea to have some - and I submit that you do a much better job of it than TBT (who's gotten better over time) and the late Monicasdude, of blessed memory. I know you think I nominate for deletion aggressively, but what you don't know is that most of my admin work sdince resysop has been prod and csd review, and I am very good at declining them where there's a glimmer of hope. I even bring two or three expired prods per day to AfD instead of deleting them - and some ended up being kept, e.g. Startools. So if you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to influence and educate - subtly - for the good of us all. - crz crztalk 15:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well thanks! I will say this much - I haven't felt like tearing my hair out over what you've been doing since you got the bit back, so that's a plus.  I've always thought you were a good guy, just woefully mistaken. d;-)  Keep it up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

you awesome
yep Gr1m Kvlt 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Policratus
Why do you say that I tried to "speedy delete" the domestic violence article? I'm flabbergasted. Where do you get this shit? Policratus 20:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you even say that i possibly tried to without any proof? What is your deal man?  Policratus 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are stating that I "possibly" tried to "speedy delete" an artice with no proof whatsoever. That is in very poor taste sir. Policratus 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what you're talking about, someone else tagged that karate article for deletion before I did. You are just hurling wild accusations and have no idea what you're talking about at all.  Policratus 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * oh? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are a complete idiot. Look through the article's history.  See that someone tagged it for deletion right after it was written?  Now ask yourself was that BEFORE or AFTER today?  Pay attention to details, will you? You'll probably get further in life if you did. Policratus 20:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh and saying without an iota of proof that I "possibly" listed an article for deletion is much as if I would have posted publicly that you "possibly" committed pedophilic acts, is it not? Policratus 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A not so subtle warning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No warning. You've been block for 24 hours for that "pedophilic acts" comment. El_C 21:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mantown AfD
FYI, I was listening to the show that mentioned the article on the way home from work last night - I would be very surprised if they didn't mention the deletion discussion on the air, so be aware of that. The show runs from 2-6 EST. Also, keep an eye on The Toucher and Rich Show, which may get some spillover. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, fantastic. And now my talk page is being vandalized.  Guess I stepped in a hornets' nest of Howard Stern wannabe's, eh?  Thanks for the warning.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I read this edit which says the show was talking about Mantown being "a society for gay men to start familys (sic) in". They didn't even notice that the homosexuality part was added by this bit of vandalism which went unnoticed for weeks.  Nice fact checking, eh?  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my. Heh.  The whole article looked like a hoax anyway, so we'll see what happens in any case.  Just wanted you to have the heads-up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">Jeffpw 16:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, good job with it. There's another FAC that could use some input nearby, too... d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Emmalina
Responded to your AN post on Emmalina. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the concern
thanks for the concern i'm happy to see people are still willing to be friendly to me but I'm going to have to destroy this Wikipedia account just like the other six times

I have to remove my former commitment to 1FAPQ because of my recent panic attacks/mood swings that render me unable to edit Rampart 00:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

arbcom Q's
I saw your questions and will try to address them tonight or tomorrow...simply been very busy, so I appreciate your patience.--MONGO 22:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, whatever works for you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

FAR
There is no rule but it is common agreed practice. There is little purpose to review an article which will be in constant change (being on the main page). Furthermore experience tells me that these disputes are handled better in talk pages. When talk page discussions fail then it is appropriate to consider if the article does not meet FA standards. Let's give some time after the article is off the main page to see if the OR concerns are addressed. Joelito (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

George Tweedy review
Go into bigger details which is what the GA project asks for. Please make a new section stating why it fails the different WIAGA criterion. Secondly, I, with Agne, tried to address the major flaws. Secondly, this man only has one good/reliable source that can be used. Please re-review and give details. In fact, you should be putting it on hold as these comments made by Agne were added into the article. Lincher 04:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll drop in over there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the prose. Please be more specific and give examples of prose that could not be tight enough. Also, all the other points have been assessed if you look at the history of the revisions, and adding material would be purely speculative as not much can be found on that player (so adding breadth is unlikely to happen). Lincher 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

omg
So, what's been up? You know, I really had to check the diff to see if it was actually you... I didn't believe it at first. — CharlotteWebb 06:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I just saw this guy trolling around in other areas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?
Thank you for stubbing this article. As its about an important work of pop-art I fully agree that deleting the article would be wrong. I just couldnt decide how to deal with the problem and so brought it to the attention of the community. I'm happy to see it worked and will keep the article on my watchlist. Thanks again. --VirtualDelight 20:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You and I are 100% on the same page. I'll be watching it, too.  Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you VirtualDelight and Badlydrawnjeff for spotting and acting on the problem being created since August this year by ottex aka john Mchale Jnr.

This contributor has also been corrupting the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pop_art&oldid=87253424 since 09 August 2006

and the contribitions he has made to his father John McHales entry, created by a Piers Masterson on 10 August 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McHale_%28artist%29&oldid=87347055 makes interesting if laughable reading.

He has also made erroneous contibutions to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamilton_%28artist%29

I draw these other problems to your attention as you guys seem to care that Wikipedia should not be used for the dissemination of personal opinion, personal promotion or for defamatory and libelous statements.There have been various recent press stories about Wikipedia being used for attempted character assassination and these "contributions" by McHale Jnr are indeed all of the above.

Thanks

Rory55
 * Rory, this was brought up at the BLP noticeboard, but I do suggest posting this at WP:AN/I, which will get attention to it taht I can't. Good luck, I'll try to stay vigilant.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta (film)
I'll be in the talk for the next hour or so. Feel free to comment, and we can talk real time.--P-Chan 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I left a response there. Consider not removing the tag, as it's accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll contact you about this tomorrow. (Must get some stuff done and get some sleep.)  Cheers for now and please feel free to make additional comments.--P-Chan 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your comments.--P-Chan 04:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/NeXT
Several changes made, please see the article NeXT again. If you still can't Support, maybe you can list specific things from the article that need changing/fixing? Thanks! — Wackymacs 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

 * Well, good luck with everything! --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Et tu, bdj?
Speaking of which, I wonder what we can do about getting you sysopped? I was extremely disappointed by the last RfA, which I thought focused on personal disagreements over inclusion standards rather than the simple questions: would this person make good use of the tools, and can we trust him with them? To which both answers are, in my view, yes. That's three long-standing contributors I've seen voted down at RfA now, you, Stephen Streater and Georgewilliamherbert. Given that all three of you are, beyond a shadow of doubt, here first and foremost to build an encyclopaedia, I find it problematic that the RfAs failed. Guy 13:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the ED fiasco isn't going to help my case, and unless the 'crats are going to start cracking down on dealing with outright false statements, it's going to happen. I know full well I'd be quite good at it, and I have a lot of time during the day that I can't do a lot of writing, but could clear out backlogs, but the GWH RfA doesn't give me much hope that I'll even get a fair shake.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Idols stubs
Man, I wish you wouldn't do this. Your arch-inclusionist agenda is not helpful to the project. Do you not understand that there's no consensus for including unsourced bio articles on non-notable people? Are you aware that we need to have extra high sourcing standards on living people? These people's 15 minutes of fame is already over. There's already no good sources on these people- do you think sources will magically appear now that they're completely forgotten? If they do something noteworthy that causes them to be covered in good sources, we should make articles on them then, not today in anticipation that they'll become significant some day. If you're trying to prove some kind of point, please state your point somewhere relevant rather than by making this kind of unhelpful edit. Friday (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. I've attempted to explain my rationale again at Talk:Philippine_Idol.  I could see newbies not getting it, but it really bothers me that as an experienced editor you're OK with unsourced original research about living people.  This exposes the project to extra risk for no useful reason.  Please don't let your "let's have an article about everything" viewpoint get in the way of what's best for the project.  Friday (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a stub. You're better off asking the folks there to get some bio pages for us than trying to ay my "arch-inclusionist agenda is not helpful to the project."  You're better off making it so consensus reflects your views that people on well-known television shows shouldn't get articles.  You're better off approaching the people who create the articles who don't know how we do things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And P.S., I didn't make some sort of blanket statement about any alleged "agenda" you had when I asked you - rather politely, mind you, considering we've clashed on this before - to reverse those moves. I certainly don't think you have some sort of "arch-redirectist agenda," nor would I ever assume something like that.  I do hope you'll think twice before saying something like that again.  Disagree with me if you must, but I certainly don't deserve that sort of contempt.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it came off as contempt- I have no problem with you personally, I just wish you'd change some of your editing behavior which I see as unhelpful.  But, I can see I've let this irritation get the best of me, so I apologize.  If I seem unduly annoyed, it's because this has been an issue for a long time and countless people have tried to get you to change your approach, with no results that I can see.  I guess I'll just wait and see if anyone else expresses an opinion on this issue.  Friday (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may interject, it seems that Jeff doesn't understand that consensus requires compromise, not a "stay the course" attitude. I doubt he'd ever make a good politician, but if he could be more personable and accomodating and accept others' views, he could be a decent sysop.  I used to work in Wash. D.C. in a political job, so please accept my criticisms in good faith. Mr Spunky Toffee 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no clue who you are, but I'll be blunt - you've got it all wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which parts of my approach, exactly? The ones where I occasioanlly oppose a redirect and reverse it?  Or that I suggest keeping a very small percentage of overall AfDs?  Would a suggestion that your approach of just redirecting articles without discussion be just as helpful?  I'll say this much - folks who prefer heavy deletion simply do not get this type of scrutiny.  Excuse me for wanting to build an encyclopedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer
I made some comments on the AfD about your neutrality. I don't want you to take offense, but it seems that this issue has become rather close to your heart. I realise that I'm but a limited contributor to Wikipedia, patrolling, tagging, and fixing typos, but I've read carefully all the policy I can, and I think you're in the wrong. See WP:AVTRIV, which I'm sure you disagree with, but has become a guideline. I've read the previous AfD's, and I'm still puzzled at your reasoning as to how this is an encyclopedia article in the traditional sense, and not something one would see in a lexicon like, say, some of these big French dictionaries I have like the Harper Collins Robert or the Larousse which give defs and usage examples. No need to reply, but if you do, I'll read it here. Mr Spunky Toffee 19:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And someday, when our reliable source policy moves beyond what it is now and into realms that are more sensible, this can move from "Lists of trivia can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation" to something more substantial. I hope you continue to get a good grasp of how things work around here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons

 * Cute! Good luck, sir! --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Want revenge?
I've put an article about a probably even more controversial figure than even Kroger Babb up for peer review: Peer_review. Haven't gone all the way to WP:FAC, but that is an eventual goal. You are welcome to sling arrows. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My one issue with it is the pseudo-bullet-pointedness of the prose from the "business" section down. I'm not sure if there's plans to expand it further or not, but it feels very stilted. I'm also unsure about the mainstream appearances section, I'd personally either keep it all there and eliminate the list or eliminate the prose and keep the list, not necessarily both. It's off to a pretty good start, though - I never thought I'd find her interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's basically what the other reviewers wrote. I'll add it to the review. However, I've noticed that it's a lot harder for me to actually put the reviewer comments into practice than it was for you - with Babb, I would write something, and you would do it, while with Jameson, it's taking many days for me to make better paragraphs out of the broken points. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I really get it. The difference, I think, is that you were working with an entire article that had been written, while I essentially pulled Babb up from scratch.  I'll be glad to help you, but certain places that I do Wikipedia editing won't do well in terms of me editing a porn star, if you follow.  The good part is that the information is there and sourced, which is often the most difficult part. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I don't mean to be mean or excessively adversarial, but I would like to ask you politely to list at DRV your reasons why Cleveland steamer does not violate the policies I listed. I think it's essential that you try to do this. Thank you, and good luck in all your endeavours. Also, please don't remove tags. I appreciate and accept some of your recent edits, but tags should stay until the problem is resolved. Mr Spunky Toffee 11:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you've been plenty adversarial enough with your comments up above. I also only removed the tags that no longer applied.  Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I realise I've been very "interested," let's say, when it comes to this topic. I'll back down a bit, and I apologise if I've offended you.  It's not personal.  Mr Spunky Toffee 12:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture
There really needs to be a policy on this. I'd be willing to collaborate with you if you think there's merit to the idea. Mr Spunky Toffee 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again, but it seems that one of your main interests is intertextuality in TV and movies. I gather that you think it's important to gather info on how TV shows, music, and movies connect with each other through references. I personally think this is a waste of time and great source of clutter, so we're on the opposite side of this issue. I guess we'd be perfect to write a policy together if we can quit bickering! Mr Spunky Toffee 13:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll pass. My interests lie in indie rock and, lately, exploitation film.  Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote an essay you may want to check out. It's User:Mr Spunky Toffee/Popular culture in Wikipedia. I welcome your comments. Thanks. Mr Spunky Toffee 16:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tryninpromo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tryninpromo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to User talk:MONGO
Jeff, if you're not aware of how much MONGO doesn't want any mention of the ED website on his page, please just look at his own edit summaries a little lower down in the history. You can also check out the recent Requests for adminship/Georgewilliamherbert, which is dominated by this issue, no doubt the cause that GWH's RFA failed. Please look right now. If you restore the unwanted content again, I will block you for harassment. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC).
 * It's not harassment to ask the question. Perhaps you should instead reverse his deletion of the talk page against deletion policy instead of harassing me.  Or maybe warn him about his incivility toward me in the archives.  Get a hint, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I was assuming good faith on your part, but apparently I was wrong. You were edit warring on MONGO's page in full knowledge of it being a hostile act, in fact, if I understand you, doing it as a hostile act and in revenge. I'll bear that in mind next time. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Wow, you really don't get it. I'm actually angry at you right now about not assuming good faith about me and just defending him as opposed to even thinking you have the story straight.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So, MONGO deletes a page, but then it's harassment to question him about it? Come on... regardless of attempts to deny people the ability to mention a topic to him, he still needs to be accountable for his actions as an administrator. If he doesn't want to ever be asked about ED stuff, he shouldn't be deleting the ED talk page. --W.marsh 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was one of my first thoughts too. Though I do think it's appropriate to avoid certain user talk pages and certain topics sometimes.  I don't know.  In this case, maybe going to DRV might be the only reasonable way to address it?  (though I don't understand why G8 isn't appropriate in nearly every case.  Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations's only exception mentioned is for talk pages needed for encyclopedic purposes)  --Interiot 03:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, which is the case here even if a good chunk of people haven't caught up yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well doesn't the "contain discussion useful for creating a legitimate article at that page" clause cover the ED talk page? I was under the impression that discussion was going on to (in theory) help create an acceptable Wikipedia article. So it would appear to be excempt from (in process) speedy deletion. --W.marsh 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think so also. I haven't look at the discussions in detail but certainly some of it seems to be in that direction. JoshuaZ 03:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The question posed by badlydrawnjeff, while typically accusatory and naturally defending the ED website, as he has done repeatedly, was fine, but reposting the question made by a trolling account when he made his two attempts to post on my page, was unnecessary.,. Ah, but of course, anytime someone questions badlydrawnjeff's obviously good intentions, they are guilty if a lack of good faith. The talk page was doing nothing to help us make a better encyclopedia...if you wish to let all the ED trolls who haunt wiki use a page in your userpsace to figure out some way to recreate an article about a website that attacks your fellow editors here, be my guest. That reflection will be on you, not me. Oh, I watchlisted your page, so if you need further drama, just respond here...or take the deletion to DRV...--MONGO 06:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you're still refraining from accuracy. I suggest re-reading WP:CIVIL sometime soon, Mongo, my patience with your accusations are wearing very thin.  Expect it at DRV soon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine...do what you think is best for Wikipedia.--MONGO 12:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Spa
Hello. I thought you had some good comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Single purpose account. And even though I disagreed that the template should be deleted, some of your concerns are certainly valid. I have added some comments at Template talk:Spa, which I hope might help prevent overly aggressive application of this template. Thanks, Satori Son 22:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts are appreciated, as always. -- Satori Son 00:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Well, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorsed! You take a lot of flak for your efforts to better this place it seems.  I'd been watching the stuff this summer before I really edited here, and you never seemed to get the credit you deserved for your efferts just because you were so into controversy.  Well, consider yourself at least a little less under-appreciated now.  Miltopia 06:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

List of songs with particularly long titles
It got moved to List of songs with titles of twenty or more words on 23 June, then was AFD'd a couple of weeks back. --pgk 21:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dirty Sanchez
Hey, just wanted to let you know I (more or less) restored the most recent content you reverted out of Dirty Sanchez. I'm not happy to be involved with the article, but it draws enough vandalism and doesn't get reverted very quickly at times, so I keep an eye on it. Anyways, the stuff I put back in is actually confirmed by the two secondary sources listed in the references, and it's also mentioned at the commercial link given at Screeched. Thanks for reverting the stuff though, there's quite often original research put in there that cannot be confirmed, and per biographies of living persons policy, we don't want to let unsourced material flourish.  Big Nate 37 (T) 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's on my to-do list, but I haven't had time for much more than janitorial-type stuff lately, so yeah.  Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Onkel Toms what?
I quote the article:
 * Babb's final film would be his presentation of an Italian film of Harriet Beecher Stowe's book Uncle Tom's Cabin. This version was described by Friedman as one of the most "unintentionally funny exploitation films ever made," filled with "second rate Italian actors who could barely speak English." [note:] The Sleaze Merchants: Adventures in Exploitation Filmmaking.  John McCarty, St. Martin's Press, 1995.

However, the article on UTC suggests that this is Onkel Toms Hütte; German, not Italian. Of course, it's possible that Friedman or McCarty is very confused, or that Italians dubbed an (Italian-) English soundtrack. But over to you. -- Hoary 07:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll double-check this. I'll have to re-find the book, though... --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Footnote/bibliography style
WP's "references" are a strange hybrid of works-cited entries and endnotes, but both of these are normally written in the order: author - title - publication/location. Thus for a works-cited entry:
 * McDougal, Dennis. (n.d.) "Filmmaker Babb let promotion offset low budgets." Press-Enterprise.

and for a footnote:
 * Dennis McDougal, "Filmmaker Babb let promotion offset low budgets," Press-Enterprise, n.d.

of course with variation depending on the precise "style" (APA, LSA, etc.) you're using. However, your order is very different..... -- Hoary 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I went for consistency more than anything else, and I can't tell you where I adopted this style from, but it was from some other people here. We lack consistency across the project on this, which is troubling, but yeah. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you'll have seen, I've made a lot of changes. I'm fairly confident that I didn't screw anything up, except for the article by Turan. Please check that I indeed didn't screw up, paying particular attention to that footnote. &para; And don't give up, OK?! -- Hoary 02:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Press kit photo
You've clearly put a lot of work into this article and note doubt are miffed by the frigid comments by Tony ... so I hate to say this, but, er, Image:Babbpressbook.JPG is rather ghastly. Can't you rephotograph it, or, better, scan it? If not, at least run the existing image through IrfanView or similar (i) to crop it (more than half the image is of a table or floor) and (ii) to make it less jaundiced (unless it really is yellow, of course). Yes, I know, you hate me. -- Hoary 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm only miffed by the vague comments than anything else. The book really is yellow, and quite ugly, but I'll see if I can dig up a bookstand or something.  I wanted to try and get the idea that it's a large book rather than anything else, so maybe that's not coming across.  By the way, you changed "causing" to "exciting" controversy.  I've never seen the word used like that before, was that intentional?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about either (a) scanning the book, or (b) trying a bit harder to stand so that the camera is directly above it? On the verb to go with "controversy": come to think of it, "excite" isn't right and "cause" may well be better. I wanted to suggest that there really wasn't much controversy, if any: via fake letters, etc., Babb and his boys would create a pseudo-controversy. -- Hoary 15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I've cropped the photo (incidentally, thereby making a huge reduction in its size in bytes, I think without any obvious degrading of visual quality). On further reflection: (i) The flash of white page-edges shows that the photo isn't jaundiced. (I'd first wondered whether it was taken in tungsten light while the camera was set up for daylight.) Because of this and because of your comment above, I didn't fiddle with the colors. (ii) Photographing it other than head on may get around the problem of the copyright of the original design (but IANaL). -- Hoary 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think a photo of the book to demonstrate what it looks like would violate anything, and if anyone did quibble, I'd grudgingly remove it, but the cropping is nice. Looks a lot better in the thumbnail, so thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Miss Moneypenny
Good job on the edits and breakup of that massive intro to Miss Moneypenny. I'll be sure to put in a good word with MI6 for you. Double-Oh-Dolomite &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 15:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to have Her Majesty's protection. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix
We've had some disagreements in the past (remember the drinking games purge?) but I see lately you've had your problems with Wikipediatrix and her decided lack of civility towards anyone who stands up to her. So have I.

I don't know how she gets away with this (she did get blocked once). If you get to the point where you want to RFC her, let me know and I'll be happy to provide supporting evidence or sign it or whatever. Daniel Case 16:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno if I'm up to that point, yet, but it's good to know I'm not the only one, I suppose. There are much worse offenders than someone who's occasionally rude to a fault, really.  But thanks for the support on that much.  Also, since you cite the drinking games, I hope you know that, even with our disagreements, I've yet to think poorly of you in any regard.  You do good stuff here, no matter what other people might say.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * She, and some anon who was howling mad that New Coke, which I take a lot of responsibility for, doesn't jibe with the way he thinks it should be told, are about the only ones who've ever thought poorly of me here. Daniel Case 02:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm, cola wars on Wiki. I heart it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review (ED)
I was wondering if you'd had a chance to see my proposal at that deletion review about the ED talk page? I've proposed that the relevant discussion get moved to a subpage or the talk page of the AfD, similar to how "further discussion" has taken place over the Esperanza pages. I know the talk page of the article is normally the best place, but in this case this could be a viable alternative venue for constructive discussion on how notable ED is and what to do about all this. Carcharoth 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It really honestly makes no sense, because no one's going to look to go to the AfD's talk page, and, frankly, the AfD talk page only makes things more confusing in this case. I just have to deal with the fact that people would rather defend lies than improve the encyclopedia and continue with that in mind.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I honestly cared more about the process and the ability of people who may have been interested in a page in the future than the talk page itself, and once again, the usual suspects stepped right up to the plate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that it would be more a place for people already aware of the issue to provide constructive comments. I was thinking that an out-of-the-way place like that might avoid trolls, but that would be being too optimistic I fear. If you want a general place for anyone to talk about whether the ED article should exist, I agree that the current talk page would be too divisive and attract too many trolls. I would suggest appealing to an admin that you respect (can't remeber if you are one yourself) to allow you to have a copy of the reasonable stuff, especially the links claiming to prove notability, and then build up a case yourself. I too care about process, and have successfully fought this kind of battle, but I don't envy you this one! Carcharoth 01:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe's Shanghai
Hi Jeff. My rationale was that there was a consensus, rooted in policy (unlike the keep votes), to delete the article. If we're counting, which we don't, it was 10-7 delete. However, policy trumps 'I like it'. As always, you know where WP:DRV is if you want to confirm whether I acted correctly. I will re-edit the AFD to ensure my rationale is on there. Regards, Proto ::  type  13:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the re-edit. It's interesting that you say the keep votes weren't based in policy, given the evidence that the subject meets the WP:CORP guideline.  I'll let you know if I put it on DRV, it's probable at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I didn't see the evidence of it meeting WP:CORP; based on the discussions, it seemed that it has been referred to in one or two reliable sources, but not with any significance or notability attached to it. Proto ::  type  13:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeff. I just got around to noticing the rational Proto gave for deletion. I want you to know that I second your idea of a deletion review, and I pledge to help you if you need it. The interpretation of the AfD discussion doesn't seem to be fair. I'll be around if you need me. Thanks. --Howrealisreal 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion request
I noticed your remarks on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote; I would appreciate it if you could take a look at WP:DDV, and indicate if it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't). Basically it states that AFD (etc) are not decided by vote count, and in general voting is discouraged (but not forbidde). Thanks. ( Radiant ) 08:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * i have had it watchlisted, so I'll give it another gander and toss some commentary your way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mom and Dad
The article Mom and Dad you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Mom and Dad for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your help the last month or so, by the way. I really appreciate it.  I have a couple I'm in the process of getting info on, so I may be grovelling again shortly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My comments
Jeff, since you have indicated, understandably, that you don't intend to respond further to the discussion on my comment at Deletion review/Log/2006 November 16, I'll say this here. I think all of the events surrounding the related ArbCom case at this point make it disruptive to pursue undeletion of this talk page. I think in this case, it would be preferable to let this entire issue die down. The vigor that you've displayed regarding the undeletion discussion just struck me as wrong and possibly more than that.
 * I think you're very much misunderstanding the ArbCom case, not to mention the specifics surrounding it, but there are more problems apparent in that than could possibly be worth getting into right now, so we'll just leave it at that.

However, you make a good point regarding my assumption of bad faith, and with my subsequent qualification of my good faith. I haven't had any dealings with you in the past, and despite my gut reaction to the discourse on the page, I was wrong to assume bad faith. Please accept my apology. —Doug Bell talk 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, and judging by our paths since we got here, I doubt we'll run into many (if any) issues in the future. I continue to be concerned about your imminent promotion given the situation, but consider things clear between us.  Just keep this situation in mind when you actually have the power to act, because the last thing we need are more rogue admins. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What worries you?
If you don't mind saying, what sort of things worry you? You can respond here, on my talk page, by email or not at all, at your preference. -- nae'blis 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied via e-mail. You're fine, no worries. d:-D --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Anything that gets MONGO and Jeff to agree can't be all bad! Thanks very much for your vote of support at RFA, and let me know if there's anything I can do to help you in the future (I signed on to userfy deleted articles for reworking, for example). -- nae'blis 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck, seriously. I'll probably be coming to you a lot in that case...d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Films (band)
Hello again. So if there are 5 voters, four of which say it doesn't meet a guideline, and one person shows that it in fact does meet the guideline, at what point are those delete arguments weakened? I'm not sure what the rationale for the close was here. Let me know, I have this page watchlisted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it didn't meet the guideline. The chief guideline for band articles is WP:MUSIC, and the band fail WP:MUSIC.


 * Tour info would have to be reported in notable and verifiable sources - a myspace page is not a reliable source, nor is it verifiable. No other source was provided in the AFD discussion to prove the band met WP:MUSIC.  Proto ::  type  13:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you read WP:V, which I quoted, a band's page can be used as a source if it is uncontroversial and has something to do with the subject's notability. This qualifies, and they met the standard.  So I'm not entirely understanding the argument here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's not a reliable source for the fact that they are going on tour.  As this was your justification for the article passing the criteria WP:MUSIC, it was not sufficient.  Do you understand that a band's myspace page is not a reliable source?  Please, again, take it to WP:DRV if you don't agree.  In this instance, I am pretty confident that nobody will agree with you, and they will, probably, be better able to explain why a myspace page is not enough for WP:V, as I am not succeeding.   Proto ::  type  14:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I may have to. What defines what's verifiable here, the WP:V policy or some other guideline.  I really need to understand what part of "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:...it is relevant to their notability" doesn't apply here, though.
 * Yes, it can be used as a source. But it's not a reliable source, and is certainly contentious if you're claiming it's enough for WP:MUSIC (note the exclusions listed in WP:V).  Proto ::  type  14:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It meets those parts below it. That's the point.  This is silly, I'll be DRVing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tommaso Onofri
I'm considering submitting this to DRV as a test case for WP:BIO. The voting was pretty iffy (well it was actual voting in case of the Keeps), but the deletes ignored the fact that this case made international headlines. First page of Newsbank finds are from the U.S., England, Australia, Mexico... The article itself was a decent stub and sourced with an (outdated) Yahoo news link. What do you think? ~ trialsanderrors 21:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'll take a look shortly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion on WP:BAND
I have suggested some minor rewording at WP:BAND with respect to the touring criteria. Since I was inspired to this action by your statements in the AfD and deletion review for The Films (band), and since I am absolutely sure you will hate, loath and despise my suggestion, I feel it is appropriate and fair to invite you to respond directly at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). While I frequently disagree with what you say at AfDs, I strongly support your right to say it. Cheers, Xtifr tälk 05:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, worst idea ever. By the way, thanks for completely misinterpreting my statement to make your point, I appreciate that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation
While I promised not to send out thank you's following my RfA, I decided to make an exception for my nominator and the people that asked the excellent questions. I appreciate you asking the questions that Mailer diablo usually asks, particularly the question on WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. I'm sorry you don't feel comfortable with handing me the mop; I hope to not disappoint you with how I wield it. —Doug Bell talk 19:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Best of luck in any regards. I look forward to your proving me wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

List of albums with long titles
Hey there, I apologise for not responding sooner - I have not really been contributing recently. The AfD page for this article is at Articles for deletion/List of albums with particularly long titles (2nd nomination). I hope this is of some use to you. Rje 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed you weren't around, so no big deal. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sweet FA

 * HOLY CRAP! Today is a good, good day.  Thank you! --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Encylopedia Dramatica
Just wanted to drop you a note saying I appreciate your efforts in having the talk page for the article on ED unprotected. I never saw the original article and much of the fallout from whatever happened seems to have vanished; so all I can do is guess. It must have been quite awful.

I admire your candor and your attitude towards freedom of speech on Wikipedia. Preventing a talk page from recreation is a step I've never before seen on Wikipedia, and certainly hope never to again (preventing discussion of materials critical of Wikipedia isn't one step removed from censorship; it is censorship). I sincerely hope that your efforts don't harm your reputation in any way.

No barnstars or anything trivial; but you have my respect. 121.208.35.113 15:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know who you are, but thanks anyway. I'm glad someone gets it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

good article candidate sections
hey, Badlydrawnjeff, could you add an architecture section while you are at it? best, DVD+ R/W 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your signature on Meta
Is broken. Just a heads up. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  <font color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 12:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, damn it. I'll go ahead and fix that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Shaky rationales
I took the shaky rationale for the DVD cover from today's featured article, figuring that if it was good enough for a featured article, it should be good enough for the DVD cover. You are right that too many fair use images might be overdoing it. I figured you would use what you wanted and discard the rest. -- Jreferee 15:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem. I may end up re-using it anyway once I put some more information regarding the recent DVD release (I own it on VHS currently), but after my experience with Kroger Babb, I want it to be airtight.  Thanks again for your help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reality television characters and notability
I'm trying to formulate my opinion on all this, with the goal of perhaps contributing to proposal. If you have a moment, please check out User:Dina/Workshop/Reality Television Characters. Cheers. Dina 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. At the very least, WP:BIO needs to be more explicit about how it does already cover it, but perhaps a new proposal is necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An added line or two in WP:BIO might end up solving the issue, but at the moment, I'm not even sure what lines I would suggest. However, I tend to disagree with deleteallrealityfancruft-type nominations, and would like to see something a little more formal created. Any thoughts you could offer would be appreciated. Cheers. Dina 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use/copyright
I'd love to have your input regarding a forked Wikipedia in the fair use discussion. It seems unlikely that we're going to talk those pushing towards a free-content Wikipedia off the edge, and we need to figure out a way to compromise.

Your insight regarding the Wheatus photo has been very helpful, but it feels like, just like some of my comments, it's falling on deaf ears. With that said, please let me know what you think. - Stick Fig 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think forking is the answer, and, in all seriousness, fair use images aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. The frustrating part is the complete lunacy of some of the fair use hardlinrs who are using policy to direct behavior as opposed to using policy to build a sensible encyclopedia.  I'm not sure where to head on this, I have some ideas, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree in that regard. I've had many of my comments ignored and disregarded due to policy-speak, and it's not particularly nice to do so. It just finds us at opposite ends of a spectrum, shouting down to each other, unwilling to budge. Where's the compromise here? Nobody seems to be willing to give up any ground. - Stick Fig 17:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the reasonable compromise is to do each one as a case-by-case basis. If it's believed a fair use image can be replaceable, we discuss it and come to a consensus.  Thus, some, like the Wheatus photo or a promo photo of J. D. Salinger, both images that would be deleted under the current criteria, could be discussed based on their actual replaceability as opposed to the blanket, moronic, "it exists thus can be replaced."  The logical situation continues to be "fair use, to be replaced when a free alternative is located/presented," but I don't see that happening. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mom and Dad
I am still trying to nuke some of the red links, but that will be quite hard to do. Let me know if there is anything else I could do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help on this little project, I told you it wasn't easy. d;-) I'm not sure of what else at this point, I know the actors in Mom and Dad were going to be a long-term project for me if you're feeling ambitious/bored.  You've done a lot, though, so thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mom and Dad
I took a look and made some changes. I also left a note on the article's talk page. I'm concerned because of how much it reads like Kroger Babb. Take a look. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied a bit. Oddly, it did start as a c/p from Babb, that's why I'm trying to get some more eys on it.  Anyway, I'll centralize the discussion there.  I appreciate it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FAR
As the two-week review period deadline is approaching, please let us know if your concerns have been addressed at Featured article review/V for Vendetta (film). Sandy (Talk) 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten, just got a little sidetracked. I'll be over shortly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward


 * Well, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)