User talk:Bdj/Archive7

Ice Age (band) DRV
Could you please have a look here, once again – and reconsider your stance? (or probably rebuttle my claims  ^_^ ) Ref – Ice Age (band). &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done and done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta FAR
I've reinstated the FAR template for Featured article review/V for Vendetta (film) as it was not closed by consensus - can you please mention on the FAR whether your concerns have been addressed. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 14:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I left a note for here, as we need to make sure reviews are closed properly and reflecting consensus. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 14:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the note: you still don't say whether the FAR should be closed, with all concerns met, or continued per your new concerns. The FAR is open until there is consensus to close it. Sandy (Talk) 14:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought this was a little more obvious than it ended up on second look, so I've clarified. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei
Okay, I see what you're getting at, I think. Suppose we just want to copy information out of a page, move it to other articles/Wikiquote, and then redirect the page-- is that considered not a "delete" that requires an AFD, but rather just an editing decision that doesn't require an AFD? --Alecmconroy 18:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I *think* so. The idea is to preserve the information somehow, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Masts for deletion
Hello. As the closing admin, I'm notifying the most active contributors to Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill, which has now been closed, in case they want to take any action about it. Best, Sandstein 12:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Would you mind to correct the mispelling of my surname in your request at. It is Kahn not Khan. I don't think it proper to alter other editors comments or I would not ask. Thank you.-- Dakota 04:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean anything by it, so I apologise. In the future, if I do something similar, feel free to fix it for me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
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 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Already left a comment there, I'll be glad to discuss it with you further if need be, preferably at that talk page, but wherever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On RfC
I actually was thinking about writing you regarding the issues, but they've been happening over a long period of time. Perhaps I have shown cowardice or lack of drive in not addressing them with you directly before mentioning them as asides, and in doing so have not been as fair and open to you as I should have. I regret not simply spilling my mind, and apologise for not doing so. Overall, while I respect your articlespace edits, and don't think you have ill will towards the project nor are you intending to hurt it, your actual stances are almost uniquely harmful to Wikipedia. You've often pushed against CSD and IAR, both of which are crucial to the operation of the project, and much of what you do resembles a crusade for radical democracy and hard process. Your arguments on the mailing list (I have to read the mailing lists for my LSS project) about loosening up requirements for sourcing and similar threaten both encyclopedic focus and undermine the trust readers can place in our project. I would never consider you a troll - your edits and passion show dedication, and that's ordinarily a wonderful thing. Without that kind of passion in at least a good set of Wikipedians, the project would be much worse off. I believe though that your understanding and vision for the project are faulty and both inspire others towards such positions and more directly, hurt it. In sum, I admire your passion, but your positions seem very ill-chosen and harmful to me. I reiterate my apology for not coming to you before about this. Over the many years I've been on Wikipedia, I've seen many people who have had similar ideas - oftentimes they eventually go away, sometimes they don't. I try, when I can, to talk to people early and consistently about problems I see, but it's exhausting to do so, and I never know who's going to either be active enough for a conversation to be a good use of my time/energy and who's going to stick around long enough. Wikipedia, especially to the extent that I'm involved, is very tiring, and I hope you'll forgive my lack of forthrightness in this regard, even if you don't end up agreeing with me on what the project needs and my analysis of the effects of your activities. --Improv 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely accept and respect your apology - that's really big of you, and shifts my opinion of you tremendously. I will say one thing, however - we may not agree on where we should be heading in regard to sourcing (it's interesting that you categorize them as loosening restrictions when I'm trying to introduce more sourcing, I guess that's perception for you), but we're in the same place on a lot of things. I'm not looking for "radical democracy," that wouldn't work here. I do think we need hard process, but only because I think the lack of it is actively harming the process at this point. Again, these are disagreements, and the two extremes we sit on end up working out relatively well, I'd think. Finally, the CSD? i'm really only vehemently against two criteria that I think are unnecessary, the rest fall into that area I think makes logical sense. We're closer on some of these issues than you may think, and I'm hoping this small exchange might help both of us make a better effort in noticing that in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Discuss, don't vote
Noticing your objections at Wikipedia talk:Discuss, don't vote. This sounds a heck of a lot like what Improv was talking about at Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin_3, don't you think? Friday (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. I actually like the sentiment behind "Discuss, don't vote," I just don't feel like we should be forcing it down people's throats by just deciding it's a guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * *Scratches head* Alright, I still don't get you. Like Improv, while I'm convinced of your good intentions, I do think some of your stances are actively harmful. Friday (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you made that somewhat rudely clear last month, and it was pretty old, then. I'm pretty straightforward - if you have a question, ask me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being rude. Friday (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

TMNT 2
Hi Badlydrawnjeff. Thanks for reviewing the Turtles film for GA status. I know what you mean in reference to the prose being a problem, as it is very stop-and-start. The main reason for this is probably because some of the article was kind of put together from a range of sources/facts/websites/etc, so it kind of seems like a bunch of things thrown together. I'll go through it and try and tidy it up though. Thanks.Davey4
 * Sure, good luck with it! --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko
What could change in the article, apart from the specifics of how he died, and why, the second of which is unlikely to be known. I could understand failing Alexander Litvinenko poisoning, because thats still a current event and ongoing, but his biography isnt going to change that much at all. Thanks, RHB 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I replied to this earlier, I apologise. The good article criteria looks for stability, something that this article isn't going to have for a little while. If you strongly disagree, you can find someone else to review it and I won't interfere, but that was my rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
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 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

NHN closure?
I am surprised that you assume bad faith with me by leaving comments such as this one –.
 * Closure of this AfD was based on the poor presentation of evidence as to the notability of the article.
 * The article itself did not cite reliable third-party sources.
 * Most of the google hits – – present here are links to either forums, blogs or game development wikis.
 * There was no way for me to ascertain that this game had featured on one of CNN's articles; except perhaps by doing this –
 * The article was undeleted after I acknowledged the note left by Eloquence left on my talk page.
 * I have notified the undeletion on the concerned WP:DRV discussion page.
 * In case you feel that I am not doing my job well as an admin, I invite you to check my contributions every now and then – and then comment on my talk page.

Warm regards, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've assumed bad faith at all, actually. I've seen reason to suggest overturning a number of your recent closes, and, if anything, I thought I was paying you a little extra respect by noting that I wasn't citing your decision as a reason to undelete. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand; and I respect you too. :)  &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 13:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And just to put this to bed, I'm very up-front. If I have a serious issue with you, I won't be afraid to confront you on it, so just know that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of serious issues, someone told me that you were the Boothy443 of WP:DRVs. Ofcourse they were joking. Now don't ask who . &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 13:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering other people I've been compared to recently, I'll take that as a compliment. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OMG! Someone just called you an innocent guy on IRC via PM. And its a beautiful female this time. I'm serious &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll have to let her know I'm taken, or something. Ah well, I'm glad someone understands that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review/Jenna Jameson/archive1
I rewrote the listy parts a bit - do you have a moment to take another look and see if it's better, or needs more work? Thank you. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look tonight when I'm in a place that's appropriate for a porn star's name to be displayed anywhere. d:-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

King Johan
Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 22:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is new. For the record, I don't bother with stub sorting because there are too damn many of them, and plenty of people to do them. Keep up the good sorting work! --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Snowball
RE: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion it is not possible to close something early as snowball keep? Travb (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, no. We have standards for early keep closes. That doesn't mean people don't still do it, but they shouldn't be, and it's generally a good rule not to encourage it so it doesn't bite you in the rump later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks Jeff. Travb (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On hold status of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze
Your on hold placement for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze has expired. It has been over 7 days since you put this article on hold. We, as in the WP:GAC review team, request that you review this article and either pass or fail it. Diez2 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's on my agenda for today along with the other one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On hold status for Battlefield 2142
Your on hold placement for Battlefield 2142 has expired. It has been over 7 days since you put this article on hold. We, as in the WP:GAC review team, request that you review this article and either pass or fail it. Diez2 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

opinion on WP:GA for Ginger Snaps
Hi badlydrawnjeff,

I was wondering if you have a moment to look at Ginger Snaps. This article seems to have a bare minimum of cites (could use more, and some of the sources are kinda marginal-quality IMO, but...)

My problem is the prose... everyone seems to have different standards for "well-written" as expressed in WP:WIAGA 1a. It seems that I have far higher standards than...umm.. some people who have recently been objecting to my high standards. Any thoughts?

Thank you for your time &amp; trouble, --Ling.Nut 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. I've been dodging Ginger Snaps for a little bit, so I don't mind tag-teaming on it. I'll leave notes at that talk page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! :-)
 * A follow-up: Does "so yeah" mean "So yeah, pass, reluctantly" or does it mean "So Yeah, fail"? :-) Thanks --Ling.Nut 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * haha! Well, which way were you leaning? The sourcing worries me a little more than it worries you, but it seems like the prose worries you more than it worries me. So I don't really know, which tells me the answer is probably fail for now, but encourage relisting shortly. If you were to pass it, I wouldn't protest, though.--badlydrawnjeff talk 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what's funny...
..considering we're completely diametrically opposed on literally everything (looking over your userpage), it's amazing we've never made extended uncivil comments to each other. Weird. It just struck me, watching some people interact with you on various talk pages. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm off to murder an innocent article or two. :p -- Elar a  girl  Talk 20:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I find your humor disarming, and your rationales sound. That's why we've never seriously clashed. It's all I ask for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no reasons to file an RfC on you
I don't even pay attention to what articles you edit. I am only concerned with the repeated ill-feeling you have for so many people in your edits on discussion pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have ill feeling for - maybe - a half dozen people here, total. It doesn't come lightly, and I do not appreciate you reading into it any other way than what my experiences with them have been. Your speculation is baseless and entirely without any merit, and is designed only to disparage my opinions on that page. Completely uncalled for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff is so consistently contrarian that I wouldn't hope to guess whether the ED conflicts are a major part of his thinking on MONGO. In general, the page could stand a nice cup of tea or a cool-down or whatever, but Jeff is staying more civil than many, as he usually does. TheronJ 20:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Somehow, people forget that I haven't been involved there in almost a year. As if that even matters anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that, for the same reason that I am not sure if you've quit attending Fight Club. ;-) (BTW, I meant my comment mostly as a defense, but am not sure if it came across that way). TheronJ 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha. No, I followed you fine. It's not like I've ever been dishonest, though, dunno what gives people the feeling otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * index.php/Special:Contributions/Badlydrawnjeff - put that in "elsewhere", you get no edits unrelated to discussing his absence since February. YAWN. Milto LOL pia 22:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An RfC on Jeff would be a waste of time - absurd and frivolous. ED is a sore point for a lot of reasons, but I see no compelling evidence that Jeff is part of the problem. They pressed the nuclear button and it blew up in their faces but I see no evidence that Jeff would encourage or condone that kind of crap. I disagree with Jeff on pretty much everything, but malicious he ain't, not in my experience anyway. The assertion that he's an EDer first and a Wikipedian second is absurd and again without any compelling evidence. Jeff is Jeff, he likes what he likes, he tries to document it in the projects where he finds a place to hang his hat, and in my experience he tries to do so within the bounds of what the community accepts, albeit working to influence community mores towards accepting what he likes. As a Wikiphilosophy it is entirely legitimate, even if what he likes is not necessarily what many of us have in mind when we think "encyclopaedia". I can't see him as the problem here. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think an RfA would be more fitting. But maybe that's just me... Milto LOL pia 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's been tried, actually: Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff. He got a lot of support, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Guy. Just because he's a bit touchy sometimes doesn't mean he's eeeevil. He almost always acts in good faith. Now, if we could just bring him to the Dark Side.. -- Elar a  girl  Talk 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm too pure of heart! --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Memorial School
Hey, ta for redirecting the article...or more to the point, for making it work. I made the article deletion proposition because I did the same thing and the article actually remained in place, even after a whole day! Maybe Wikipedia doesn't like me...Cheers anyway. Rob Lindsey 18:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I have it watchlisted in any case. I don't know if it might require more attention, but I figure it's worth having a logical search point end up there. Good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

 * :D -- Drini 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta
We're still waiting for closure on the V for Vendetta FARC. If you could get back into the negotiations it would probably better for all of us. Let's get this over with and get on with our day jobs.--P-Chan 07:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made my comments over there already, I'm not sure what else to say on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Stop it. Seriously. You are out of line. ( Radiant ) 14:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No personal attack there, buddy, you might want to acquaint yourself with that policy as well. Perhaps you may want to hold off on the now multiple unjustified accusations in the future, k? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:KETTLE. ( Radiant ) 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I thought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again
Keep up the good work... it doesn't go completely unrecognized. In fact, it's easily visible even to lowly users like myself. It seems like you give a lot more to this project than you get from it, but I hope one day that changes, or I hope I'm wrong. And for those who just won't let past crap go... forget them. Milto LOL pia 14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks. You're probably more right about that second statement than you even really know, but I stay optimistic that it'll change eventually. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will watch your page
I will watch your page, so our conversation is all here. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll explain why I'm in favor of MfD on this: if they're going to exist, we need some sort of workable thing to point to, and the more people we get behind it, the harder it will be to get rid of later. It seems pretty cut-and-dry, so getting it out of DRV and into a more actionable forum is tantamount to my thought process right now. I'll consider it, but I'll likely stand pat. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Gorgeous, I agree with your logic (I am not being facious when I mention Niccolo Machiavelli, as the link shows). Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Chase Headley
Consenus in the past has been that being a minor league player with no major league experience is not notability, and is a clear speedy. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You're incorrect on this, please read WP:BIO and reverse your deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy drama
Be sure to go vote keep on this so that everybody else can see how I'm deleting things in bad faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you're just being WP:POINTy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I am not trusted to do the job of an admin, therefore I must get your approval for everything I do. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're grossly incivil, I think you've made some poor deletion decisions. That's pretty much it. If you think you're not trusted, then resign, but you don't see me opening any cases on you and I'm not planning to, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And I think your sole purpose for being here is to make life miserable for those of us who actually care about Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll stop when you get off of my back and let me do the job of an admin. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I don't care? That's an interesting tack. Meanwhile, I challenged one of your speedies and requested you stop attacking me. That shouldn't get in the way of your "job," and if it does, do something about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon the butting in, but yes, Zoe, you're just making a WP:POINT. We can have disagreements without this requiring us to assume that someone will also disagree with us on everything we may do in the future. Friday (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How am I supposed to do the job of an admin if badlydrawnjeff is going to stalk me and question every action I take? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Zoe, Jeff questions nearly every deletion, he's the most inclusionist inclusionist I know, but his aims and yours are precisely the same: to build a great encyclopaedia. You (and I) and he have legitimate Wikiphilosophical differences about what that means, exactly, but you can't accuse Jeff of not being committed to the project. The man drives me to distraction sometimes, but he keeps us on the straight and narrow, and I'd be astounded if he didn't feel persecuted sometimes. Please don't take it too personally. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/KEvin Satzinger is a sexy man whore
 * Articles for deletion/Kimberly Hampton
 * Articles for deletion/Grundle fever

Help defuse the personal aspect of this conflict
Hi badlydrawnjeff... I'm sure it's frustrating, but can I ask you to sit back and try not to respond to Zoe's accusations for a little while? Everyone can help make this less of a personal conflict. -- SCZenz 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At some point, the falsehoods have to stop. I didn't make this personal, and I've tried very hard not to, but I'm not going to not defend myself when I'm being lied about. I'll try to show some more restraint, but I can't promise that I won't respond to blatant falsehoods. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. All I could ask is that you consider giving others a little while to respond to such comments instead of doing it yourself; it's pretty clear that head-on argument between you and Zoe won't accomplish anything. Perhaps mediation will... best of luck with that! -- SCZenz 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh damn, I was expecting to find a humorous essay at Criteria for Speedy Drama! I might have to get my satire head on. Anyway, can I do anything to help here between the two of you? Guy (Help!) 22:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We've gone to MedCab, so I'm hoping that clears the air a bit. Thanks for the offer. You holding up with your, uh, "problem" okay? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I took it to a page of its own. OK, hope that you get on alright in medcab. Must be the time of year.... Guy (Help!) 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale guideline
Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.

I would like to propose Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.

This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.

So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
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 05:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you !
About Sorin Cerin.Is unacceptable what hapening with Sorin Cerin.Please se the contrib. page. open by Jmabel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Curiosity about the Jeff Pulver entry
I'm just curious as to why you took out the content from the Jeff Pulver page, in spite of what is said on the discussion page and in Jeff's blog. Please restore this vandalism unless you have a good (and stated) reason. Your brief "copyvio" note in the save message has already been countered (before your edit), so a source for your claim would be interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hans Persson (talk • contribs) 07:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
 * It was a straight copy-paste, and read like a press release anyway. We can discuss further at that talk page if you're interested. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the obvious solution would be to rewrite it to NPOV, not delete information claiming copyvio which isn't there. I'm getting more and more loath to write stuff in Wikipedia, since it seems more and more common that people take stuff away for no good reason (the ridiculous "notoriety guidelines" being the most common cause). 193.180.23.45 14:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're talking to one of the most notorious users who want to keep things in the encyclopedia. Ask anyone about it. With that said, even if we had permission from Pulver's blog, unless he's going to release it in a usable license here, it won't fly, and someone else would find an excuse to speedy delete it as a copyright violation anyway, and even if he did release it in a worthwhile license, the way it was written wasn't all that encyclopedic. I've probably rescued the article by stubbing it and sticking to what he's notable about. Please expand it, I don't know the guy, but we can't have a cut and paste job for any number of reasons. If you want the article to stay, you have a friend in me, but we do have basic standards outside of our very ridiculous notoriety guidelines (I agree with you on that). --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Julie Kenner
Hi I noticed that you reinstated the redlinks for the Julie Kenner article. Anyway I'm just here to start a discussion on that. I personally don't like all of those redlinks on an article and I know wikipedia generally discourages making a redlink that will never be created into an article. Although if you get around to it that's awesome, I just can't see all of the books being made into articles sometime within the immediate future. A worry is that even if the articles are made some might not actually meet the current proposed guidelines of book notability. Anyway I just came by to see if there's a compromise that could be reached on the links? Perhaps put a list of linked books on the talk page and unlink the ones on the main article until the book articles are created? Anyway I just thought I'd bring it up for discussion. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see the book notability guideline getting anywhere currently (and I've had some strong input over there), so I hadn't been thinking with that in mind. Here's my issue - I don't want to see a chance at the articles being made diminished by hiding them off on the talk page or aynthing. I'm not entirely sure what they're harming. If you feel really strongly, I'll work with you on something, but I'm not really seeing the problem currently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's more aesthetic than anything else for me, I'm not a fan of huge lists with nothing but redlinks. I really only see maybe one or two of these books being made into articles that are more than stubs. Plus I'm not a fan of having an article on a book created and it only being a sentence or two, it seems like the majority of books by romance authors that I've come across on here are nothing more than that, and even though I'm more of an inclusionist I'd much rather see those go than have them stay. I guess that's more of an all or nothing mentality. And you're right they're not hurting anything anyway I guess I'd like to see where these redlinks go, in a few months if nothing has been done with them perhaps discussion on the redlinks could be brought up again? --ImmortalGoddezz 17:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair. My plan was, since I have some time off at home coming up, to take care of some of the self-imposed backlog I have, and this would, theoretically, be part of it, so if it's not dealt with soon, I'm perfectly fine with revisiting it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so that you would be proud of me...

 * Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer)
 * Articles for deletion/Icy Tower &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  15:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Online sourcing
Saw this article in the paper a couple of days ago and thought you might be interested in it. The line that jumped out at me as up your street was "The venerable OED, as of four years ago, allows internet citations". Anyway, have a read and have a good Christmas. Shedloads of hoodies. Steve block Talk 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, that one's getting bookmarked. Interesting read, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In return, could I point you to Articles for deletion/Jenni Olson? Steve block Talk 18:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A+ rescue job, there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ta. Steve block Talk 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI per AFD
User:Badlydrawnjeff/The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga Thanks --Docg 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob. Merry Christmas.--Docg 15:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

E-gamers - what category is being used?
I'm not trying to PO people here, and this is a serious question from a non-sports person (the only sports I do are downhill skiing and figure skating (and a bit of college hockey years ago))... What criteria is being used for these people? My reading of the WP:BIO is along these lines...

From Notability (people) Where do e-gamers fall into the standard categories? They are not:
 * Political figures
 * local political figures
 * entertainment or opinion makers
 * actors or TV Personalities
 * Published authors, editors and photographers
 * Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals
 * Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated

Can they be considered under the following:?
 * Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States.

They aren't sportspeople or athletes - but they may be competitors; is this the category where their notability is being justified? I didn't think that this was the intent of this category; I read this as those that are actually physically competing. If e-athletes are to be judged under this criteria, I would urge a notation being made as such to prevent further confusion on the issue.

As I couldn't put them in any of the above categories, I fell back to the basic:


 * "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. - All of these criteria are in fact simply special cases of the general primary criterion of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. A person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians.

There may be articles written about these people, to whom I have no animosity, but can it be said that they are making a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field?

I do agree that several of the persons on the AFD list do have independent notability, and have noted so on their pages. However when looking at the field, I still say that these don't qualify as I don't see how they are part of the enduring historical record... (article - began playing):


 * Chris Smith (electronic sports player) - May 2005
 * Scott Lussier - July 2005
 * Eric Hewitt - April 2006
 * Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) - May 2005
 * Dave Walsh - March 2004
 * Brandon Jenkins - April 2006
 * Carlos Morales (electronic sports player) - April 2006
 * Michael Cavanaugh - April 2006
 * Victor de Leon III - "Victor has won no tournaments and has no notable placements in professional events."
 * Ryan Danford - May 2004
 * Zyos -"Leto quit gaming professionally after his former team, Xit Woundz, failed to place top 4 during the second event of the 2006 season."
 * TuLegit - ?

Again, I'm not trying to PO people here, would just like to see a clarification made for future disucssion on where exactly these people fit into the WP:BIO scheme!

Thanks for your patience with a non-gamer. :) SkierRMH 06:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think WP:BIO works for these. I've made my opinions known at the ones who clearly meet it, although I think anyone considered a "professional gamer" should be included - WP:BIO needs to be amended to better reflect that. My suggestion to you, if you're going to pursue it, is see if you can't work with the gamers in the various wikiprojects first before doing more AfDs, to see if we can't improve the sourcing and make it explicitly clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy holidays !
You may want to consider endorsing this petition: User_talk:Friday. StuRat 12:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD
You voted at the DRV on this, wanted to point the AfD listing out if you wanted to vote there. Articles for deletion/John C. A. Bambenek (3rd nomination) -- ChrisPerardi 15:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Guitar Hero III
An article that you have been involved in editing, Guitar Hero III, has been listed at Articles for deletion/Guitar Hero III. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Lankybugger 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
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 07:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA Comments
Hi Badlydrawnjeff. Thank you for your comment on my RfA. I respect your opinion that you feel you can't trust me with deletion tools. However, it would help me as an editor if I understood why. I also am not sure what I may have said in questions 4 or 6 that would be objectionable. If you have the time, I would very much appeciate further feedback. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 16:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * HighInBC asked a similar question, so I'll keep it centralized over there. I have no problem expanding on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your response. I think I understand your position much better having read your comments, but I may still misunderstand, so please correct me if I am wrong.


 * Regarding snowball, I think there is no doubt that snowball has been used as a bulldozer to avoid useful and productive discussions. I don't know if you are aware of the MfD against Esperanza that was closed early as no-consensus. That particular case seemed to me to be a wise use of closing an debate which was (imho) clearly not going to arrive at consensus and was (again imho) not serving the community. I am curious if you are aware of it, and if you are opposed to that early closing. I think we probably agree with respect to the majority of instances where the snowball clause has been invoked, but possibly disagree there are some cases where closing a discussion might be appropriate. If we do disagree on that point, then I can respect your position. And further, since I would not be representing your position as an admin, I can respect your oppose vote. (I am assuming that you would equally oppose anyone else who left room for early closings of discussion). I very much wish that we could arrive at some common ground. However, I am not sure how, or whether, this could be achieved. If you have any thoughts, I would welcome hearing them.


 * With regard CSD:G11, I think the situation is somewhat similar to the above. Let me first say that you are correct that CSD:G11 applies to "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." My paraphrase was not meant to belittle the standard requiring "the need to be fundamentally rewritten". Rather, I was intending to emphasize another point, which was that an admin may delete articles which meet CSD:G11, but is not required to, and that I do not intend to do so. I think the difference between us on this may be that I have stated my willingness to accept admins who delete G11 articles within policy, but that you may wish me to be an admin that represents inclusionism against such admins. If that is your position, again, I can respect it, and I can respect an oppose vote on that basis. However, if that is your position, then I do have a request to make. You commented in the RfA that you could not trust me with the deletion tools. If my understanding of our differences is accurate, I would very much appreciate it if you would consider rewording you oppose vote in line with this. However, if you believe that I would be deleting articles, despite my explanations, then please keep your words as they are. Thank you again for your time. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship
 

Thanks for your voting on my successful Request for Adminship  (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion talk 16:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Master E.K.
If you want, I can email you a copy of the copyvio or of any of the previous versions. Send me an email and I'll send them on to you. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

However, I probably won't get a chance to review my emails until this evening. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That'll work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Send me an email so I can get your email address. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI
The game is up for deletion again. Rdore 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Katie Greenwood AfD nomination
Thanks for voting for keeping the article that I contributed. At least there's one person who agrees with me. Hiyahiyahiya 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not really sure where people are coming from, but I dunno what to expect with AfD these days. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* mediation?
We're at the point where we are both accusing each others of denying the other's opinion and arguments. What would you say we ask for help at Mediation Committee?Circeus 17:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm extremely cynical about mediation at this point, but if you think it's worth it, I'm game. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We can always agree to disagree.
 * Basically, I believe it's clear there is no consensus to eliminate the guideline right now, regardless of whether consensus/unanimity/supermajority was present when guideline was proposed. A grand total of 2 users that I've seen have expressed some levels of opposition to it since you started raising concern, including you. So I'm saying We can just stop harping on the talk page for the time and see how it evolve. After all, plenty of people do not agree with some of the Notability subsets' criteria, but agree that there is not consensus enough to remove them.
 * There is a chance that some of these types of categories will prove to be too difficult to decide to be reasonably held within the guideline, but we won't know until the guideline has had some time to be actually applied, will we? There will be plenty of occasions for us to butt head at WP:CFD, if you care to come there, and when (if?) consensus that the guideline is problematic arises.
 * How does that sound?Circeus 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there was never a consensus to begin with, a common issue with certain premature taggings. Instead of allowing consensus to exist, we're starting from the point that one person believes there's consensus, and we're forced to work in that frame. That's not how it goes. You don't say "it's a guideline" and let people disagree, you say "should this be a guideline" and let people agree/disagree. The evolution has been retarded by the way one person chose to go about this, and a good point was made on the talk page - we already have a guideline policy that works fine, this only muddies the waters. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm no dismissing your belief (I firmly believe consensus was present when the guideline was tagged as such), I'm just making abstraction of it since it appears clearly to me that right now there is no consensus whatsoever to either call the guideline "disputed," much less demote it. And it appears enough people believe that these examples are necessary to create the guideline in the first place. Could be worse, just look at all the spinoffs of manual of style

Circeus 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that you build consensus first, and then tag. You don't tag, state that there's consensus, and then force people to attempt to prove a negative. The latter is what occurred - in this case, he may be right, but you don't act until one knows for certain. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That maybe (repeat:I believe there was consensus from the start) there was not "wide enough consensus" (because NOBODY disagreed, so you can hardly say there was no consensus at all) is STILL not relevant to demoting a proposal that CURRENTLY has clear consens-...
 * Wait a minute, scratch that. You clearly don't want to agree to disagree. I'll be opening a Mediation request soon.Circeus 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then maybe mediation will help you see my side. I'd love to agree to disagree, but part of that involves some give and take on your end, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Overcategorization I think I've managed to explain the nexus of the dispute simply and in a neutral fashion. Circeus 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Kroger Babb
Great job getting the article to featured status. Nice to see this on the Main page today. --Aude (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Today would have been his 100th birthday, so I'm glad Raul was able to find a slot for it. Good times! --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FA help
I'm admitting from the beginning that I want to make it a point that I can work with you outside the inclusion debate.

I've recently worked to produce Verbascum thapsus, which I think is a fine article, and a good candidate for FA status. However, there is at least one area where I must admit serious fault in my writing, and it's WP:LEAD work, and I am far from satisfied with the current one. Do you have any advice for me before I seriously make a WP:FAC push? Circeus 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice article. A few issues: 1) The lead looks good - not great, but good. I'm horrible at leads, it's easily my weakest area in writing articles. I know a few people who helped me watch this talk page, so I'll see if I can't pester some folks for you. 2) The knowledge is very specialized. Reading it, I felt rather lost, to be honest, stumbling over a lot of the words. Science isn't my strong point, do you know if it's possible to simplify the language without sacrificing the accuracy, which is more important to retain? 3) Referencing. The number is excellent, but why did you choose to go with everything at the end of the paragraphs? Furthermore, while that seems to be the style of choice, it's not entirely consistent from section to section, which will at least require an explanation. It's not wrong as much as a little jarring if you don't know why, y'know?
 * Otherwise, I can't say it's bad. If it were up for GA, I'd pass it, but it might not hurt to take a look at those things and see if the prose can't get a third opinion on it. Good luck with it! --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks.
 * I've tried to provide wikilinks for as much of the technical terms as possible (e.g. vernalization, soil seed bank, calyx tube). I don't think it is anymore jargonistic than, say, Banksia integrifolia or procellariidae, so any specific suggestions about specific passages that need fiddling would be especially helpful. (I always make sure to list them when I answer at FAC)
 * Actually, the only place (as you point out) where a and-of-graph convention is used is in the description section, and is User:MPF's doing. I did not agree then (especially how he altered the carefully ref'ed numbers whose conversions took me a whole hour to work out), and your comment now only highlight a need to restore as much as possible the original prose.
 * And it has already passed GA Circeus
 * Per #2, "V. thapsus is a dicotyledonous biennial plant that produces only a rosette of leaves in the first year" is the one I tripped up over first. With a couple reads, it becomes clear, but I also only have a very passing familiarity with botany. There are a few passages like that, and beefing it up with a short explanation ("V. thapsus is a dicotyledonous biennial plant that produces only a rosette of leaves in the first year, which means blah") may help.
 * For #3, interesting. I dunno, then, but you'll likely get more pushback if you ask other people about it, it's very unconventional. Good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) up for deletion review
I was wondering if I could get your opinion on that Deletion review/Log/2006 December 30. He is Karma in the gaming world and currently ranked as both best FFA/1v1 Halo 2 player and is apart of the best team, Team Carbon Valoem   talk  06:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Badlydrawnjeff/DRV is Broken
Are you still maintaining this? Looks like no. I'd be interested what the current ratio is, especially for A7/G11 speedies. It should be easier to do now since we're not burying the discussions in the edit history anymore. Happy new year, trialsanderrors 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I was, but then the DRV status changed from vote count to "consensus," making the old ones rather useless in terms of figuring out how broken it is. I'm recently re-interested in doing it, and I was waiting until December finished up for good before tackling it so we'd have a full month and the "new" closings had been fully accepted, but my perception right now is that DRV is getting worse instead of better in terms of its calling. I'll be plugging away at it a bit once I finish some stuff up with the article I've been revamping, so keep it watchlisted and I'll be offering something sooner rather than later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I added it to my watchlist. Will be interesting to see what you come up with. ~ trialsanderrors 20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano arbcom comments
Jeff, If this conflict becomes scorched-earth, all it will do is incinerate everyone involved, including you and Giano and those "on the other side". The whole point of David Gerard's proposal is that both "sides" are good wikipedians. Either that concept... WP:AGF... works, or eventually it's all over for all of you.

That's not the outcome I want to see. Please re-read it all, in particular Lar's comments and your responses, and AGF. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some incinerating is what's required. AGF only extends so far, and I'm not concerned about Lar, he's not currently the problem. I've read it fine, and I hope to see this sort of "warning" on all the other talk pages. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Pirate's Booty, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  22:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Critics
Given that your edit summaries WERE nonsense predicated on your inability to read the wording on the tags, I'd say that those comments have a firm factual basis. Given your normal history of snarky comments like this, you are the last person on Wikipedia to wield WP:CIVIL like a club -- or have you provided yourself with your very own "Get Out of Jail Free" card? --Calton | Talk 16:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Calton, just actually read the speedy tags before you put them out there. They don't meet A1 or A3, or any of the ones you threw on there. And asking people to read the policy they're quoting isn't uncivil at all, so it may not hurt for you to take a look at that policy, too, while you're doing your research. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * read the policy they're quoting isn't uncivil at all. It is if the person is doing so to imply that that have done so and are so obviously correct -- look up "passive-aggressive" sometime -- and they, in fact, are not. It's a sorry replacement for an actual argument, a bit of empty arm-waving to convince outsiders without the actual heavy lifting.


 * They don't meet A1. Of COURSE they meet that standard: there's not the faintest whisper of ghost of trace of an mumble of notability, especially the db-club tag: what part of CLUB did you miss? The members may or may not be noteworthy -- none are mentioned, in any case -- but the substub is about the ORGANIZATION, not its members. Capiche? "Individual members" versus "club" -- you DO see the difference, right? --Calton | Talk 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't meet the A1 standard. Just AfD them if you feel that strongly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, remember that policy, WP:CIVIL, you like to wield? Clearly, no.
 * You want to write snarky self-serving nonsense, put it on the talk page, like the instructions say. Or have you exempted yourself from THOSE rules, too? --Calton | Talk 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not being uncivil at all. I hope you do read that policy, along with the CSD ones, soon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't tell obvious lies and don't patronize me with obvious nonsense: you're not very good at it. --Calton | Talk 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't told a lie yet. I repeat - cease with the incivility. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lie is the proper word. When person knows A, and continues to say B, it's a lie. No one's saying anyone's evil, no one's saying anyone is a bad person, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. If this were the first time these canards had been trotted out, you may have a point, but they are instead repeated ad nauseum. I will not not defend myself. Hmmm, sounds familiar. Let me guess: consistency, policy, rules, intellectual honesty; that's for OTHER people. --Calton | Talk 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Thus the difference between that situation and this one. Feel free to defend yourself, it won't mean you're suddenly correct about the speedies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Central Ohio Film Critics Association
To Calton and Badlydrawnjeff

Reverting over tags is considered breaking the three revert rule as much as reverting over content. Both of your comments were, at worst, goading the other user e.g. "Nominating user would prefer an edit war to an AfD" and "And where would that assertion about the club be? Are you hiding it under your hat? Did you accidetally delete it". Both are uncivil comments and both dissapoint me from established users.

As a reminder, I'm givign you both short bans (8 hours) for breaking the three revert rule (with incivility a factor in the decision too). Play nicely --Robdurbar 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't break the 3RR. What are you talking about? Furthermore, there's nothing incivil about pointing out the edit war - by going to a hangon rather than repeating the removal of the tag more, I was trying to avoid an edit war. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Badly, looking at it again, I note that you only did three reverts. Consider your ban to fall under the fact that you encouraged Calton in continuing the reverts and were uncivil. I have also noted that these reverts have continued across a number of pages. This is a slap on the wrist to both of you for the disruption --Robdurbar 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so one reason slain, a few more to go. Can I ask how I encouraged it by ceasing to revert him and adding hangon tags instead? Am I not suppose to challenge poor speedies (and note that his speedies have been declined)? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, repeated reverts over a number of pages is disruptive and falls under blockable behaviour. The comments in the hangon tag were added incivility; there was no need for them. --Robdurbar 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a need for them, to note his disruption and to make the reviewing admin aware of the situation. This reeks of a punitive block, seeing how there were no edits on the issue for nearly an hour. And let's not forget that he'll be gone for at least the next 8 hours anyway given his time zone. This makes absolutely no sense, there's no way those speedies should have been allowed to stand without response. What would you have expected? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, you should probably have listed them for an AfD, or added the hang on tag straight away, paticularly after you saw this was a problem with more than a couple of articles. And as for 'one reason slein' - I still regard your editing pattern over the related articles as disruptive wiht so many reverts.
 * As for the time zone arguments - I am not in the habit of noting what time certain users chose to be awake. Indeed I couldn't tell you what time it is Japan right now. And I don't know what time it is Masachusettes either. --Robdurbar 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The hangon tag is for the authors, not people looking at the category. If anything, the AfD tag should have been added by Calton since he wanted them deleted, I went straight for the hangon tag once I noticed he was going to force his will. There's nothing disruptive about removing bad speedy tags, I still have no idea how you're coming to that conclusion. Whether you pay attention to time zones or not, this reeks of punitive action, which is a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Its only not disrputive if you believe the tags were added in bad faith; I don't. --Robdurbar 18:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can distinguish? I saw it and said - they shouldn't be doing that - will block them both to remind them. To me, that's not meant to be punitive. That's why its a short block - its a reminder. Robdurbar 18:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've looked over the editing pattern and decided I was hasty. Calton certianly broke the three revert rule and I'll retain his ban. I sitll don't endorse your actions but I agree a ban was strict. In a future situation, I would avoid the 'edit war' comment in the hang on tag and if a removal of a speedy is reverted, leave the article with a hangon tag. Robdurbar 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly do that. Thank you for the reversal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

nice...
— CharlotteWebb 14:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's funny 'cause it's true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
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 07:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A note from the Grand Exalted Warlord of Deletion
I feel like I'm gouging out my own eyes with a salty spoon. - brenneman  07:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Deny recognition
What is the point of this?? It's more bloody red tape from the stuffed-shirt admins. Those long-term abuse pages on Mr.Pelican Shit, WiC, Willy on Wheels, loyalo vandal etc. are needed - and as for deletion of the templates like Template:WoW, well, why??

Complain - fight for your rights. I'm no vandal myself, but I am a freedom fighter if you will. Get this stupid Denyrecognition thing deleted if you can. WoW and friends should be humiliated by these pages, hell, that's the point of these pages.

Rant over. Now go and do your work. I'm a supporter of your wiki-edits and wiki-ethics. --Mickpickrick 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration
Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
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 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

WP:BIO
I saw your last edit on there, I was wondering if you wanted to try to work towards forging a consensus towards ISBN numbers being a standard, however the hell you can construe what a consensus truly is. Just H 23:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm totally for it, but I think your input would be more valuable right now at WP:BK. We can't even get a consensus on what a notable book is, let alone if a person is notable for writing one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'm heading over there now. Just H 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn. No offense, but at first glance that all looks like a bunch of gobbledygook. over on the BK talk page. Good thing i'm an accomplished Devil's Advocate (not the Catholic kind, the other kind). I might have to break some wierd Wikipedia taboos though (people don't like seeing their thoughts shoved into tables, which I think helps clarify where everybody stands). Let me know if I can help further on my talk page.Just H 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Understandable. Thanks for at least taking a look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment on Requests for adminship/Isotope23
I'm sorry if this comment on Isotope23's RfA offended you in any way. I did not intend this to be so; I was instead demonstrating the irony I saw in the situation, and apologize if you did not see it as such. Best wishes, Yuser31415 05:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, not at all! I messed up, haha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yuser31415 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi. My RfA has now closed (no consensus, 73/26/6). I won't post multiple thank you messages but I did want to say that it was really nice of you to defend me despite our obvious wikiphilosophical differences on notability and deletion in general. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 02:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship
A) Interested, B) worth trying? - brenneman  03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A) Not really, check my userpage. B) Not really, due to a lot of reasons I could never get into on-wiki and stick around for. But thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Embarrasing for me. Not having a userpage as such, I often forget to look at them. I can only say that one of the real and continuing tragedies of Wikipedia is that people fail to respect people with whom they disagree. Despite its outcome looking at the AfD I am pleased to see that some "agree to disagree" wikilove was taking place. If you ever change your mind, do let me know. Despite thinking you're terribly wrongheaded ^_^ I am sure that you would be an asset to the project weilding a mop.  brenneman  03:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, well, you get involved with the wrong crowd once and it sticks with you forever. What can you do, y'know? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
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 05:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Turk
I know by now you've seen my copy edits; but I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed the general flow of the article; it was almost like reading a short story.

A side note about quotations and commas; I was always taught that when you are quoting someone a comma should always come before the quoted text, like so; Jane asked, "Are we going to the store or aren't we?" So whenever I see a sentence that quotes someone and does not have a comma before the quote I pute one in. However, I know that that's not the standard everywhere; it's just what I was taught (and what I see the most in fiction). Looking at the examples in Manual_of_style it seems that that is the standard preferred by Wikipedia also.

I just thought I'd mention it because I noticed you change at least one of them back. I'll leave it up to you wheather you want to put them back before the quotes or leave them out. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought, I've replied to some of the inline stuff on the talk page, needs some help on one. With the comma, I believe I've been taught that in the way I'm using it (a non-dialogue quote), the comma breaks the statement apart improperly. Thus "Jeff said, 'I like to use commas'" is as correct as "Jeff said that he "like[s] to use commas." I will look into this further, because I very well could be wrong here and didn't realize it. Thanks for the help, as usual. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation to this excellent and fascinating article. As you've probably noticed, I've already made a lot of little changes. I went through the article once, when I really should have already gone to bed; it's therefore particularly likely that I made some mistakes. If I did, my apologies.

Although the article is about as interesting as any that I've read, I don't think it's yet ready for FAC. Perhaps this is partly because I have a jaded notion of the FAC process. I see a lot of people who clearly are being sincere in making this or that objection, but I also see a number who seem to insist on enforcement of their own rather arbitrary stylistic and other preferences. I think it's better to work on taking a prospective FAC to perfection (in the eyes of at least three scrupulous editors) before nominating it: its perfection will then (I hope) be so dazzling as to bring people to vote for it before anyone thinks of making some goofy objection. So let's be patient.

Immediately below, stripped of markup, is an example of something I don't like.


 * a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag Gerald M. Levitt, The Turk, Chess Automaton (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland and Company, 2000).

The "and Company" can go, but that's trivial. a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag is ugly, but that's trivial too. What matters is that here we have thirty-three citations of an entire book of which none tells us a page number or even page range. I shan't go through the article right now and I'll concede that for some of these thirty-three citation of the entire book may be entirely appropriate (imaginary example: "One historian has argued that the Turk epitomizes an earlier fascination with artificial life"). For most, however, the note would be more helpful as well as more informative if in the form "Levitt, 237". (I'm not entirely happy with the system of notes in Adolfo Farsari, but I think it's better than that for the Turk.)

I realize that you're following WP style here, but I think this style is only appropriate for short papers, web pages, etc. Anyway, I thought I might bring up the matter here, rather tentatively and inconspicuously, rather than on the article's talk page. -- Hoary 06:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. I find the use of page numbers on Wikipedia to be useless due to the fluid nature of the articles - I write "Jeff enjoys cheeseburgers[1]" and then, two weeks later, someone adds "Jeff enjoys cheeseburgers and milkshakes[1]" and the reference becomes incorrect with the page number, but not the book itself. If it were a paper or something similar that would remain static, page numbers would be a must, but that's my reasoning for keeping it as is. I'm not rushing this to FAC, in any regard - I'd like to kill a lot of the issues I had with Kroger before putting it through the wringer - and your comments look good so far, I'll try to get to them tonight or so. The work you've done so far looks good, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it's horrible to think that a precise note can later be screwed up by some dumbass, er, pardon me, well-intentioned person who edits the page in such a way that the note now appears to provide the source for something other than intended. The only workaround I've thought of for this is what I've halfheartedly done in Kikai Hiroh: the note reminds the reader what it is that it is (or should be) referring to (thus "1. Enjoyment of cheeseburgers: Dobson 57."). -- Hoary 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * PS I've gone through the article again. I hope to make other comments later, but in the meantime do please take a look at the various &lt;!-- SGML comments --&gt; with which I've littered the article. -- Hoary 01:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Had a busy last couple nights, I'll take a look tonight/tomorrow morning. You, as usual, rock. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Brief, unneeded note
Ah, I see you've encountered. Over at the Checkuser Lodge he's almost an old friend at this point...Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, he's nothing new, I know. i'm just incredibly impressed with his tenacity and endurance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So am I, frankly. I've never seen anything like it. Mackensen (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Camp Cuddly Pines: Power Tool Massacre, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  00:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual Humanism Afd update
I appreciated your vote and comment (though I found it to be rather an understatement) on Articles for deletion/Spiritual Humanism (second nomination). Meanwhile, as original nominator, I think the situation has sufficiently changed to appeal once more to your interest. Kind Regards. — SomeHuman 21 Jan2007 04:14 (UTC)

Big John Bates
There were no sources in the article that even remotely indicated its notability. Myspace and the band's own website do not fulfill WP:V and WP:RS. If you like, you may list it on WP:DRV, and if consensus agrees with you, it will be undeleted. Thank you. -- Avi 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources are not required to avoid an A7. Please undelete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when is adding a burlesque show notable? Sources may not be required, but notability is, and I still did not see any evidence of notability. The proper procedure is to use WP:DRV and if consensus is that I erred, then I would be glad to undelete it. -- Avi 14:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when is adding a burlesque show notable? Sources may not be required, but notability is, and I still did not see any evidence of notability. The proper procedure is to use WP:DRV and if consensus is that I erred, then I would be glad to undelete it. -- Avi 14:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since he was the first. It also asserts that he toured nationally and internationally. My problem is that you were incorrect, and I was offering you a chance to fix the mistake instead of having to go through DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for closure, you are correct, and I have undeleted the article and placed it on AfD where it belongs. Thank you for correcting me! -- Avi 15:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2 Much Booty (In Da Pants)
Based on the arguments given, I felt that the Delete votes were more convincing, and they were more numerous. If you disagree, we have procedures for requesting an undelete at WP:DRV. Thank you. -- Avi 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I plan on it. What was more convincing, when they said "not notable" when it was a multiple-charting single? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, it has the number 2 it it. That means, obviously, that it can't be notable. Right? Right. :p Needless to say, the Deletionist Cabal is ashamed a song I've danced to is deleted. Rap is notable, even if written poorly. -- Elar a  girl  Talk 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's an inappropriate joke about the booty in your pants that I am too much of a gentleman to pursue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you're a proper gentleman, I'm a proper lady. :p --<font face="Verdana"> Elar a  girl  Talk 08:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

?
Why did you revert the merge? (Jane Dark could have a separate article as a "pen name," but not a bio--Jane Dark isn't a person...) I don't really understand AfD and never participated in one before, so if I am being dumb, please explain. :-)-Cindery 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not against it being an article about the pen name. I don't necessarily agree with the merge, though, but that's a discussion for over there. I could be convinced, but I think it needs discussion first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
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 06:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Uglies
I've spotted that Uglies has now got some plot details, and that you've previously blanked plot details. While I don't know whether it's worth blanking (I haven't read either version) you might want to have a look. --Romanski 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA
Will you tell me why the info you want out of the Mitt Romney article should not be there on my desk under this case? If you can please leave policies and guidlines that support taking it out of the article. Thanks. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this still going on? Is it even an issue anymore? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Alert!

 * To read what each one means, visit WP:Barnstar. SynergeticMaggot 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Seriously, it's good to see you back and semi-active again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Proof reading
Thanks.--Docg 15:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob. I learned something about the British spelling of instalment too, so that was cool! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in any more proofing. I finished the companion article Archibald Cameron of Locheil.--Docg 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Thefidelitywars.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Thefidelitywars.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD of Robert Ehrich
Hello, oh vile dark lord, I have nominated an article that you created for deletion. The discussion is here. Regards.--Kchase T 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you will bow down to me. Or something. I had it watchlisted, but thanks for the heads-up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads-up But of course... I like your nickname almost as much as I appreciate the person who gave it to you.--Kchase T 11:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sheshouldasaidno.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sheshouldasaidno.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your time. I hope to speak more in depth next time! Bubba hotep 01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anytime! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice's A7 analysis
Jeff, my reading of the recent arguments at WT:CSD about A7 was that it may have been applied overbroadly, but that the deleted articles nonetheless weren't on notable subjects and that you weren't satisfied that process wasn't properly followed, but that argument wasn't getting many other supporters. The other day it occurred to me that one didn't need sysop access to determine whether we're actually deleting notable content. One could simply search for sources for the more notable articles and then we could discuss whether they were actually notable enough at the CSD talk page (or AFD, or DRV, or wherever). I'm not inclined to search for those sources, as I suspect I'd agree with Mangojuice's analysis (and therefore his conclusions), but I thought I might tell you about my idea in case you wanted to follow up on it. Cheers!--Kchase T 12:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that it doesn't help the article now. I could track down soruces or whatever, but the simple fact remains that a staggering amount of articles are being speedied that shouldn't be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but you're not convincing people of this with arguments. Hard evidence would be a lot more persuasive because, unfortunately, you're reputation persuades you, and no one really knows what percentage of all A7s are genuinely notable. In any case, I will try to do some of this in the next few weeks, but I won't have infinite free time again for a while, so no promises.--Kchase T 14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the evidence is persuasive, and I'm waiting for GBerry's review to go through. Mangojuice kind of dug his own hole here with his ratings - when he can say that 42% of A7s aren't unambiguous, that's a major problem. I think people are misunderstanding the debate more than anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Quit it
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant%21&curid=6823815&diff=104072319&oldid=104072236 I don't intend to depreciate anything. You preach about how guidelines come to be and then ignore consensus and long-standing practice? Quit it. Quit making veiled attacks in edit summaries, quit the tendentious editing on the WP-space pages, and quit acting like you're above the basic way we discuss things here. It's incredibly tiring.] --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your own words, "Then why not ditch notability entirely as an inclusion criterion, and only focus on verifiability? historical the lot of it and point it there?" . Also, you've been persistently making snide and disparaging remarks about me for weeks now, so you are just about the last person who should be complaining about incivility. Glass houses, you know.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read that as a serious proposal, I don't know what to tell you. Meanwhile, I don't think so. As I said - quit it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * *Radiant blanks talk section*
 * And use the talk page for major changes. You know better than this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * *Radiant blanks talk section again*

Gee, must have been something I said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Inquirer
Someone added a section on Everywhere Girl and the "Wikipedia controversy" to the INQ article per the DRV. I tried to clean it up a bit and format the references but you may want to have a go at it. By the way, I like your new title... you should add "the Vile Dark Lord of Inclusionism" to your signature. --Isotope23 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, then it'll be too long. I don't think I'm going to touch it - it should be its own article and it's fairly insulting that the DRV was again in error in how to handle it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Isotope23 17:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

PI and SNOW
Hi there. I was just making my way across Wikipedia and stumbled into the tempest over at Wikipedia talk:Process is important and/or Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause. From what I gather, you're one of the principle parties involved in the discussion/debate/dispute/whatever. As a neutral party who is new to the discussion, I'm wondering if perhaps I can offer an outsider's take. To that end, would you care to tell me your take on things? If you'd rather not, I understand. I just figure a fresh perspective might help. Regards. —DragonHawk (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I could honestly care less as to what happens at WP:PII, it's an essay as far as I can tell. WP:SNOW needs to be a n essay to discourage its use, since no one's ever going to delete it. It's not because process is important, but because consensus can change and we can't predict the outcome of a process. It's fairly simple. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Web guideline

 * "...Including the changes made by AB..."

I know we often disagree, but am I reading this edit summary in the wrong light? - brenneman  00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so. I meant is as that I incorporated your changes within the revert. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability reverts
I have read the talk page, and see no consensus support for a disputed tag. Please AGF. Also, you may want to count your reverts, looks like you may be approaching 3RR. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's why I haven't reverted again, the tendentious editing caught me. It's interesting that you see no consensus for the tag, but see consensus for a change that was never discussed at the project page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't jump to conclusions. I've only made one edit to that page, and it was removing the disputed tag. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I see no evidence that the article or any part of it is disputed. One editor does not a dispute make. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to say, then. I can't see how you can say that reading all the related talk pages. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikistress?
It seems like your wikistress level is climbing. (As I'm sure you know, comments like "I'm sure you're watching my every move"never do any good).

Is there anything we can do to help with the stress? TheronJ 16:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to add your input the dispute I'm in, that would be the most helpful thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why on earth would I be watching your every move? Does it surprise you that I'm involved in a public forum like DRV or the Village Pump? Does it seem odd to you that I have watchlisted most guidelines that I contributed to? The world does not revolve around you, and I do have better things to do.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Riiiight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe as an extension to assume good faith, we can assume that Jeff said "I assume that you already noticed, but just in case wanted to alert you that . . ." and Radiant! said "Thanks, Jeff. It's not that I'm watching you, just that we have common interests!" You're both good eggs, from what I can tell. I'll take a look at the policy stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheronJ (talk • contribs)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
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 17:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your medcab case
Just so you know, I moved your request for mediation to Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-30 Radiant and "Notability" Guidelines to fit with the case naming guidelines. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Socionomics
Er, I didn't realize it had only been open for 3.5 days. I'll just undelete, reopen it and make the DRV unecessary. JoshuaZ 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I figured the commentary you left was cognizant of the situation, so I just cut the middle man. I've removed the DRV in the meantime. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"conflict of interest" guidelines
Hi BDJ --

I'm tracking down users who have expressed disagreement with the current "consensus" version of the conflict of interest guidelines (the consensus currently appears to have been defined very recently by Radiant.) In particular, the guidelines as they currently stand are ambiguous and have been misinterpreted to mean that any kind of COI must automatically disqualify an editor from working on a page. I want to encourage you to join the discussion if you have the time and patience.

Sdedeo (tips) 02:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have an extremely busy next 24 hours or so, but I'll be glad to take a look when I can. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Weakening of WP:N
Can you point me to the actual dif? CyberAnth 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of what part? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The one that caused you concern at noticeboard. CyberAnth 08:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This move was made at the three in particular, and is the one Radiant is defiantly keeping around without bothering to gain consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK
-- Yomangani talk 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEB vs WP:CSD
Is this your fundamental reason for disputing WP:WEB and the other notability pages? That people will misinterpret WP:CSD to mean we speedy anything that doesn't show up in one of the example categories on a notability page? &mdash;Cryptic 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's part of it, certainly. More of it has to do with a small, vocal minority saying this has to happen, and one tendentious editor in particular forcing it regardless of the lack of consensus. If consensus exists for the change, there's nothing more I can say - I can accept being in the minority. But until that's demonstrated, we can't turn our entire "notability" structure upside-down. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)--badlydrawnjeff talk 12:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)