User talk:Bdj/Archive8

Sunshine
I appreciate your piping in regarding the Adam4Adam and enjoyed your Love Shack DYK. Most of all, I hope your Wikistress level is low! Shaundakulbara 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's getting lower, thanks. I'll comment more at the Adam4Adam thing once I can do a little research on my own. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag discussion
Hi. Appreciate your reply. I hate conflict so bad, that it makes me shake, but I love calming things down. Can I humbly make a suggestion? As a sign of good faith revert the tag yourself and then start a new discussion of the contentious edit, adopting a really neutral position? If your concern was that the change was made without consensus, people might actually chime in if they a) can clearly see the problem without needing to check loads of diffs and b) don't feel like they're stepping into a fist fight. I know this won't seem a very attractive option, but I think it'll work. And leave you looking like the good guy... which is nice. --Dweller 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've tried that tack in the past with him, it doesn't work. Simply emboldens him into believing he's actually right, which is counterproductive.  I think my new theory is simply going to be a version of WP:RBI, without the blocking part.  The best thing you can do to help is actually chime in with your feelings on the matter.  I don't care if you support me or not, honestly - a resolution to this is my utmost concern - but the only way this will be resolved is with discussion.  See some related discussion at WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB, and where this started, WP:N.  Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. If you pull it all together succinctly in a new thread at WT:BIO, I think not only I, but others will be pleased to join in! --Dweller 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

2+2=4 et al.
Nice talking with you, as always :-)

I'm actually trying to like whack down a nail with solid logic (and a touch of maths). So like, please bear with me. Unless you happen to be a professional project manager, and are toying with me, of course. In the latter case I'll whack you with a cluebat ;-) --Kim Bruning 15:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had a brain fart. I like discussing this stuff with you, you know that, so don't feel bad about thwacking me when I make an error. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh! :-) Hey, I see you have an aim/icq address. But you seem away? --Kim Bruning 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am. I'm being naughty.  If you need to contact me privately, I have e-mail access. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah not so much privately, but more like this is so much back-and-forth it would almost work better on IRC or messenger or some other real-time medium :-) --Kim Bruning 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking really small steps, because I don't know how numerically agile you are. I hope I'm not insulting you by going too slow. --Kim Bruning 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm math dumb, but not that math dumb. Go as fast as you feel is proper, I'll let you know if I'm confused. No problems, thanks for being patient.--badlydrawnjeff talk 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No
You appear to be forum shopping; my previous comment stands. For the last week or so, you have been persistently making false accusations and personal attacks about me all over the wiki, and that includes both so-called mediation requests. Basically, any recent discussion with you boils down to you namecalling rather than making actual arguments. Several people have pointed that out to you already, but you apparently feels justified in attacking people you consider disruptive. If you are willing to retract those accusations and attacks, and to stop making them in the future, I'd be happy do discuss our disagreements.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you plan on changing the way you've been editing on the policy pages? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MCPHSlogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:MCPHSlogo.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 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

coprofilia
I don't care about this idiot politician, but we have WP:LIVING and WP:RS here, and we dont want wikipedia be sued for defamation, do we? Tabloids cannot be valid sources, since it is impossible to separate truth from lies in their print. `'mikka 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that I caught the problem over at the main article, where I grabbed the source. I didn't realize the Private Eye was a satire mag until you pointed it out, and I've since removed it from the main article, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Honey-nut-cheerios-box.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Honey-nut-cheerios-box.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 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Embraceyourshadowpromo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Embraceyourshadowpromo.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 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Turkish undelight
Yo Jeff. Sorry I bawled you out over measurements, but while I take such things as stylistic infelicity and even so-called "bad grammar" in my stride (except when they're perpetrated by people who obnoxiously criticize it in others), spurious precision in measurement is one of my pet peeves. If I continue adding my little changes to or comments on the Turk, you will of course develop a mighty strong hatred of my guts. (Or rather, you'll redevelop it: you must have experienced it over old Kroger.) But you knew what you were getting into: after all, my loathsome personality is well known hereabouts. ¶ I'll return to the Turk tomorrow (my time); I've had a long day today. -- Hoary 10:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No no no, I don't mind at all. I'd much rather have it straight, haha.  You're protecting me from people who will piss me off at the eventual FAC in my mind.  Thanks again for your help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the further delay. A goofy proposal forced me to waste a lot of time today.

It may take longer than I hope or even than I rashly promise, but I'll go through the Turk again, in what I hope is a constructively vicious way. This is definitely FA material; don't rush it. -- Hoary 10:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, don't worry. Thanks for all your help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Overcategorization
Hi,

I saw your comments on. I idn't understand what element you want to change or felt doesn't reflect consensus. Could you explain this to me? Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole thing, honestly. There's no evidence of consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to press my point. Does that mean you think that no guideline should exist on this, that other guidelines are sufficient or that a different guideline should exist instead? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if a guideline should exist on it, honestly. I don't see many good arguments for it so far, but I can be convinced.  The problem is that no effort has been made to get consensus on it, and that's somewhat necessary for acceptance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage message
Oh nuts. I feared that might happen. --Dweller 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's to a return, when you are ready, of course. If it's any consolation, look back through old RfAs and such and see if there are any names that are around now. Ephemeral springs to mind. Maybe it will get better one day. Bubba hotep 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No,nononononononono! You must say it in italiano to get the full effect! I get all your points in triplicate - but you must learn to punch back - I give you lessons - yes? We need people like you to help change the shit that happens on this site. Giano 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was coming here to ask you to chip in about WP:BK again... Nevermind that I guess! I did take the time to read through your goodbye message and, as you can guess, I don't quite share your pessimism. Nevertheless, and although we often did not see eye to eye (especially as far as deletion of articles is concerned) I am genuinely sorry to see you go. I won't hypocritically claim that I'm sorry I won't be battling with you about notability anymore, but I am sorry that the current direction the project is taking is driving away a fine, dedicated contributor. I sincerely hope that you will one day reconsider. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You were good for Wikipedia, man. I guess that's not always a fun thing, but despite some loud detractors, you were really appreciated here. I personally think you'll be back. Everyone needs a break now and then though. --W.marsh 02:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What a disgrace, nothing less. Not that I or anyone can blame you in the least, but damn, it'll be a shame to see you go, even if we rarely interacted. Well, whatever your new hobby is, I hope you get the credit you deserve for it, for once, and I hope it's devoid of losers fixated on finding scapegoats. Milto LOL pia 09:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen you around on the Wikipedia namespace talk pages, but I hadn't realised the contributions you had made. Congratulations on those. I hope you will be back sooner rather than later. I don't share your pessimism, and I hope that more articles are included in the long run than excluded. Carcharoth 10:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, you never did follow through on that threat to make heavy use of my ability to undelete pages; hopefully you'll consider reconsidering. -- nae'blis 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 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 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Philwelch
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A note to prospective commenters in the coming days/weeks
I handled myself in a less-than-stellar way regarding the "notability" guidelines. I still expect a resolution, but I let one person in particular get to me, and I won't allow that to happen again. If I pissed you off at any point during the proceedings even though you weren't directly involved, please accept my apology. I expect better of myself, and you all know I'm better than that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Quitting on giving up is for quitters.
You sad, sad man, unable to shake the monkey off your back... Huzzah! brenneman 07:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He was scratching my shoulder and pulling my hair out, it hurt! --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The end is nigh
You and I are in agreement on DRV. The world will end soon. --Elar a girl  Talk 10:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So that is a pig flying past the window. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the kind words on you userpage. You are definitely my favourite nemisis ;) And if you are still interested in my jacobites, I've cobbled together another one Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany--Docg 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, you deserve it, and thanks for being rationale re: Kohs. You're on a roll, BTW, I'm kind of jealous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but my next article may test our inclusionism: Anstruther Fish Bar--Docg 21:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's testing my ability to pronounce basic English... --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want a snigger at me pissing off deletionists see here - the original text is preserved here. I'm only a deletionist now when it comes to bios (merge everything else), and that's for ethical reasons - we are incapable of policing under-watched bios from subtle libels - and, via OTRS, I see to many innocent people being hurt in real life.--Docg 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I sometimes love reading those because of the things you learn that you don't expect. One keep !voter in particular is surprising to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders
Hi. I saw your comments on this article. Thanks for defending it. I agree with your assessment that it has highly notable content. Just wondering where the actual article went. I thought the decision was to keep the article? See discussion here: Thanks. Lafem 08:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD was withdrawn, and a couple days later, discussion at the page apparently resulted in a redirect and/or merge. As long as tje information is there, that's what matters, the edit history still exists at the redirect page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not realize your reply/response practice.


 * Thanks for immediately responding. I don't understand a redirect if an article can stand on its own. A redirect is almost a deletion. Or am missing something? Lafem 07:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you feel it can stand on its own, there's nothing binding to anywhere that says you can't replace it with well-sourced text. The AfD was withdrawn, so there's no one you really need to answer to.  I'd go to the Opus Dei talk page, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Badlydrawnjeff! Lafem 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation
What exactly would you like to mediate? And is the other party willing? This hasn't moved into the experimental phase yet, but considering the favorable responses so far the situation looks promising. Bear in mind: no guarantees. Please reply at my user talk page. Durova Charge! 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Replying there per request. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh vile inclusionist pig-dog
Over at Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_8 I'm getting a bollocking for what seemed to me to be an utterly no-nosense speedy deletion. My head is reelling a little bit, and I don't want to prejudice you, but can you have a look? Am I utterly wrong here, or have I just made up from thin air that speedy deleting something like "Einstien was a patent clerk." can be ok even if there could be an article there if only it got some TLC? Am I rambling? - brenneman  05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish all A7s were this cut and dry, honestly. You weren't wrong, but Doc has a good point, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Who's Your Daddy? (song)
G'day Jeff.

I'm as surprised as you probably are that this song doesn't seem to have generated any particularly good sources. That said, if anything turns up in German (or Dutch) I'd be happy to translate and see what it's saying. I'm saying this because another Lordi-related AfD netted a review of the single auf Deutsch but precious little in English. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of the main page FA
Make Way for Ducklings. Can I ask why you don't think the tag should be removed. The user who added it did so with his second edit and gave no reasons. His userpage reads: "NOT A SOCKPUPPET OF WILLY ON WHEELS BUT I KNOW WILLY!" Surely the tagging was disruptive vandalism? WjBscribe 00:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my good faith disappeared once I checked the contribs on it and the second vandal came through. Thanks for keeping up with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs
Two things: First, there appeared to be at least a weak consensus to delete to me. Second, count how many of the sources even mention Gregory Kohs. Then count how many of those actually talk about the person and not his website. None of them do. The article is about the person, not his website, otherwise it would be at MyWikiBiz, and the discussion would have been different. Feel free to go back to DRV if you disagree. --Coredesat  03:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be. It looks like you conpletely ignored the arguments here, I'm incredibly shocked. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore the arguments. I looked this over for 15 minutes before making my decision. --Coredesat  03:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why we're going to DRV. I have no clue how you could have come to that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be getting very aerated about this one. I see from RFAR that you have been under a lot of stress recently. Its showing. I thought I ought to mention that to you. Try Rooibos. Its really refreshing and has no caffine. --Spartaz 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm merely irritated that people are letting this hatred of this guy overshadow anything else. i'm actually relieved with the Radiant thing now - it's out of my hands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration and WP:OC
I don't intend to rehash the entire dispute for you. I've found you, to be honest, impossible to deal with in a logical manner in that dispute (although you at least were always mindful to remain civil and mostly good-faithed in the discussion, something I've come to greatly appreciate from my encounters with user:Ghirlandajo).

To summarize, my feeling is that you uselessly levelled up a massive amount of ruckus. Despite your claims to it in the arbitration request, it was not your "pushing [of] the issue" that "eventually gained tangible consensus" for it. The consensus was there to begin with. You at best tightly focused that consensus on defending the page as a guideline (admittedly, making it clearer and completing it with examples in the process, but I expect it would have come around of itself) and polarized the whole issue.

If the case is accepted, I will present what I believe to be evidence, but I really don't want to start the whole thing over with you. I might not have appreciated your attitude then, but right now I've put it behind me since the matter itself is pretty much settled in a way I believe to be in accordance with the wiki spirit and our policies. Circeus 01:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. As I said, you're entitled to your opinion, I just wanted to know where you were coming from.  Thanks for being up-front. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 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 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

did u see tihs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hipocrite/stalk 195.225.104.228 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Psst and did u sea tihs? somebody quite different 07:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * heh! awesome, I've commented. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability (organizations and companies)
Notability (organizations and companies)

It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. --Kevin Murray 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
I have removed the request from WP:RFAR pending the outcome of the mediation. If either of you wants to reinstate the request, please let me or one of the other clerks know. Thatcher131 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin backlogs
Could you explain your opinion on the current admin backlogs a bit more? On the adminship survey, I try to say why I feel the backlogs are bad: they actually encourage admins to make quick decisions instead of slowly thinking about the merits of each speedy deletion case. To give an example, this morning I started my computer and for the first time in weeks, CAT:CSD was at below 50, giving me time to actually research and fix two of the items in the category instead of just deleting them to get rid of the backlog. If an admin has to delete one band vanity article per day, he'll have time to think, research, and nominate at AFD. If there are 50, chances are that the admin won't think, won't research, and won't want to cause another backlog at AFD and just delete a borderline article. Kusma (討論) 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You make an excellent point I hadn't thought of. I'll rethink this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Does this help?
It's hard for me to imagine I could make any argument you've not heard before, but to me this makes sense: Verifiability is about the information that's in articles- it must be verifiable from a proper source, right? Well, think of "notability" as just meaning "this subject has enough verifiable information about it that a non-permastub encyclopedia article is a possibility." My birth certificate and various other public records make my existence as a person verifiable- but there's no way a sourced encyclopedia article could be written about me. Any "article" about me would just be directory information, therefore I'm not notable. Sure, you could hunt me down and talk to my friends and neighbors, but if you have to do that sort of first-hand detective work to hunt down useful information, the subject isn't notable. If other people have already done this first-hand detective work and written about the subject in a proper source, the subject probably IS notable. Does this make any sense at all? Friday (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, we're in agreement. The problem is that "multiple, non-trivial works" where the subject is primary doesn't do that - it creates an artificial roadblock to otherwise "notable" topics.  When I can provide seven subjects without thinking that are "notable" without meeting the standard set, there's a problem.  We agree that some standard needs to be set - I just don't understand why you're so set on this standard when it's obviously poor.  If it's designed to relate to WP:V - it doesn't.  If it's designed to set a bar, the bar is obviously set too high, judging by what "notable" subjects it fails to account for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We just have to use common sense. If a single chapter in a book is about a given subject, who on earth is going to object that the book also had other chapters that weren't focused on that subject?  Yes, there's a grey area where judgment is needed, but there's no making that grey area disappear.  Whatever guideline we have on notability must be interpreted by reasonable editors in order to work usefully.  Friday (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't we make the guidelines with common sense, as opposed to forcing people to ignore the guidelines when they don't fit? I mean, this seems like a no-brainer to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." Where is the problem?  I don't have to ignore this to make it work.   Guidelines are just words on a page, they have no sense.  The sense comes in when reasonable editors read and interpret the guidelines.  If you're looking for a notability test whose results could be determined by a machine rather than by reasonable editors, well, good luck.  I don't see that we need such a thing- all of Wikipedia depends on having reasonable editors.  Friday (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem areas? "subject," "multiple," "non-trivial".  Those are the three major issues - they have nothing to do with "notability," nothing to do with establishing an encyclopedic article, and have nothing to do with WP:V, which it's designed to protect.  A "reasonable" guideline doesn't need rote machinery to operate - it needs to set a workable standard that's realistic and allows for interpretation and discussion in questionable circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't ruleslawyer over individual words, then. Simple.  Friday (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what's the point of having the damn guideline? The hell? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies if that came off as rude. I hope the point of guidelines is that they can be reasonably interpreted by reasonable editors.  Doesn't mean there'll never be judgment calls, of course.  Maybe we're just misunderstanding each other, as does happen, but to me it sounds like you're objecting to the fact that the guidelines are open to interpretation.  What other choice do we have?  We're bound by the limits of language, here.  I'm struggling to understand what you'd prefer over "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works"- would you rather see something like "has been mentioned anywhere that we can find"?  My objection to that would be that trivial mentions of a thing don't let us write encyclopedia articles.  Friday (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My hope is the same as yours, but you seem to think we can expect people to be reasonable with unreasonable benchmarks. I'm all for interpretation of guidelines, but we cannot assume, expect, or accept that something that says "the subject of multiple, non-trivial works" be interpreted as "mentioned in a number of related works that aren't about the subject."  That's simply stupid.  You know what I prefer: "A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an article."  It's clear enough where it harkens back to our core policies and guidelines, and open-ended enough where an actual discussion on the merits of sources and encyclopedic value can occur.  It keeps the bullshit out and the good shit in.  You appear to oppose this, and I don't know why. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that there is a consensus that there cannot be classes of articles that are appropriate for the encyclopedia even if they are "permastubs". If all we can come up with for a Fortune 1000 company, a bestselling novel from 1970, or a television episode is three or four paragraphs of well-written, useful, verified and sourced information, do we have a consensus that the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia? TheronJ 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you mean, that articles in such categories are Notable for WP, and that we have a consensus that they are.. Not permastub, short article. (Especially if there is more material in stable linked references)DGG' 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Friday break
(tired of indents) Maybe we're just quibbling over wording then, instead of actually disagreeing on what this means. Altho my memory tells me that we've disagreed in the past in specific cases over what's "trivial" or not. Oh well- I'm not sure we're moving forward here, I just thought I'd throw out this idea. I can't tell what, if anything, we actually disagree over at this point. Friday (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wording is exactly what the problem is. "A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an article." - let's start here, why are you opposed to this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really see any problem with wording along those lines. To me, saying it's the "subject of" sources, versus "has" sources, makes little difference at all.  I don't object to having "non-trivial" in there either, but maybe this is redundant with "sufficient".  Let's be clear tho- consider a concert review for example, that goes on at length about the headliner band and also has a sentence at the end that says "Opening acts included bands X and Y".  Are we in agreement that such a review is useless as a source for bands X and Y, and would only work as a source for the headliner?  To me, this is a classic example of a "trivial" mention of bands X and Y that does us little good.  Friday (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. Let's be very careful here- if we ever agree on notability, it's quite likely the universe will end. ;-) Friday (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. On its own, a one sentence review is trivial and useless.  But let's say that we have two more reviews that have a similar sentence at the end, sometimes mentioning a song they played.  And then we have a short magazine blurb - a couple paragraphs? - noting the members and that the album is coming out.  And then we see one more short review of the album, comparing them to another band.  We now have five trivial mentions, but all containing enough information to form a decent stub and demonstrating that they're being noted - best of all, it forces users to actually use the sources to establish the article as well as "notability," and gives us the ability to banish the unverified because it's...just...not.  A reasonable discussion can be made as not to whether the mentions are enough, but only whether it's enough to start an article, which is all that matters - our core policies and guidelines take care of the rest.  No more "is this trivial," "are they the subject" navel-gazing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrm. To me, a record review isn't automatically "trivial" by being short, because they're reviewing that record.  The band (well, one of their records) is the subject of the review.  However, any local music rag runs articles or reviews of local bands all the time- this is pretty trivial in my opinion because it's just local in scope.  School lunch schedules are in local papers too.  To me, the question of "is it trivial?" is always going to be considered, whether the guideline uses the word "trivial" or not.  Friday (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but are those local reviews sufficient to establish true notability? That's the discussion we should be having, and your quibbling over "trivial" is ironically the same type of ruleslaywering you seem to want us to avoid, IMO.  It's much more productive to take a look at a group of sources and say "yes, this establishes notability" rather than trying to shoot down sources for triviality.  Also, this is exactly why subject-specific guidelines are so helpful - as you said, most any local music rag runs these articles or reviews, so why should that necessarily be enough.  Techically speaking, it wasn't until we started pushing a more primary criteria that those started becoming an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure I follow you. In my view, the strictly local coverage is covered in a general way by saying we want nontrivial coverage.  So how do the subject-specific guidelines help?  I don't like at all the idea of us making up rules like "a blurble is notable if it's more than 10 feet wide".  Isn't this essentially OR?  That's why I object to subject-specific guidelines generally - it's not up to us to decide what's notable.  We're an encyclopedia, we don't do original research, we rely on sources instead.  Whoops, I should clarify- when I say it's not up to us, I mean we don't do OR.  It is up to us to find and evaluate sources, this is indispensable.  Friday (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's OR at all, but I don't see how local coverage is trivial, either. Of course, if local coverage isn't trivial (some is, some isn't, just like national coverage), that's where the specifics come in, it makes what they've done the arbiter, not who bothers to notice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Saturday break

 * (Back to margin). "sufficient" as the key word will not help in general. There will be every bit as much arguing about what is sufficient in a particular case as there is with the present wording. Where it might help is in establishing the idea that for the web as it is now the web sources rule is too restrictive, and adding flexibility otherwise. But I can see people arguing whether, say, 2 novels by major publishers are sufficient, or 3, or 4 or 5 or ... and all the existing disputes will continue.DGG 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A long time ago, on the article sports car, someone was trying to come up with a consensus definition among editors on what exactly counts as a sports car. This is inappropriate because it's OR. If the term does not have an exact definition out there in the world, it's not up to us to invent one. We should just say what the experts have verifiably said and not take it further than that. To me, this is very nearly the same issue as us deciding amongst ourselves that a blurble is notable if it's more than 10 feet wide. We shouldn't be making up that sort of criteria, we should rely on what the sources say. This is why IMO many of the subject-specific guidelines skirt OR and should be avoided. As for why strictly local sources may be considered trivial, I see this as a matter of choosing our battles. We have enough trouble maintaining good content as it is. If we open the door to articles on every grade school spelling bee winner, our job will become way more difficult, by sheer volume. Also, remember that the goal of the project is, broadly speaking, educational. It's hard to imagine the educational value of an article on how many speeding tickets the Podunk Police Department gave out last month. So to me, generally excluding purely local-interest content is mainly a cost/benefit concern. We're already way broader in our coverage than any other encyclopedia has been, and while this is a good thing, there is a difference between an encyclopedia (even a very broad one) and an indiscriminate collection of information. Friday (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By that logic, you're already in "original research" territory by arbitrarily deciding that "multiple" works constitute "notability" over anything else. Better, then, to use "sufficient" - at least that way, we're requesting people start with sources and not asking for more than WP:V asks for.  Meanwhile, we disagree on the scope of "trivial," but that at least appears logical - again, "sufficient" would solve a lot of those problems, regardless, I think. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are some grey areas here. We couldn't avoid having to find and evaluate sources even if we wanted to- we're an encyclopedia, that's what we do.  We can avoid inventing our own criteria based on various aspects of the subject matter, so we should avoid it.  It will always be a judgment call about what level of sources are enough, no matter how we word the guideline.  We can perhaps chose between people arguing over what's "trivial" or over what's "sufficient", but I don't see how there's an important difference between the two.  As for local matters, do you really think that grade school spelling bee results belong in an encyclopedia?  Friday (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll always have the debate, yes. but what's a better debate - deciding if the sources provided are enough to establish a basic article, or deciding whether the sources are "trivial" or not, irregardless of whether an article can be sustained?  By moving "notability" away from this "multiple, non-trivial," and toward "do we have enough information to establish notability," it makes our standards ultimately clearer and makes everything easier.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt we could come to an agreement on that- to me, multiple nontrivial sources are generally what's required to have sufficient information that an encyclopedia article could be written. So I don't see that "enough information to establish notability" is clearer- it's more vague.  "Multiple, non-trivial sources" is an attempt to clarify what constitutes "enough".  Friday (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what do we use as a basis for what's required? WP:V?  WP:V simply requires third party sources, no more, no less.  Why are we forcing a higher standard for "notability" when we can use third party sources to figure it out - perhaps one is enough, perhaps five are.  Why not use WP:V as a directive for content, and make sure that we have sufficient third party coverage for "notability?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Monday break: question regarding underlying goal of notability guideline
I don't normally quote, but I didn't want to lose Friday's statements. At the beginning of this discussion, Friday wrote:
 * It's hard for me to imagine I could make any argument you've not heard before, but to me this makes sense: Verifiability is about the information that's in articles- it must be verifiable from a proper source, right? Well, think of "notability" as just meaning "this subject has enough verifiable information about it that a non-permastub encyclopedia article is a possibility." My birth certificate and various other public records make my existence as a person verifiable- but there's no way a sourced encyclopedia article could be written about me. Any "article" about me would just be directory information, therefore I'm not notable. Sure, you could hunt me down and talk to my friends and neighbors, but if you have to do that sort of first-hand detective work to hunt down useful information, the subject isn't notable. If other people have already done this first-hand detective work and written about the subject in a proper source, the subject probably IS notable. Does this make any sense at all? Friday (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

More recently, Friday wrote:
 * Hrm. To me, a record review isn't automatically "trivial" by being short, because they're reviewing that record. The band (well, one of their records) is the subject of the review. However, any local music rag runs articles or reviews of local bands all the time- this is pretty trivial in my opinion because it's just local in scope. School lunch schedules are in local papers too. To me, the question of "is it trivial?" is always going to be considered, whether the guideline uses the word "trivial" or not. Friday (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, Friday, this is the problem with confusing the common definition of "notability" with "verifiability." If the local music rags are reliable sources, then several reviews in local rags may be enough to write a non-stub article. That doesn't answer the question of whether the band is sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia (the colloquial definition of "notable"), but it may satisfy the condition you originally set - that "this subject has enough verifiable information about it that a non-permastub encyclopedia article is a possibility." I don't mean to pick on you, and appreciate your comments, but think that this lack of concensus on whether notability means "notability" or "sufficient verified independent sources" is confusing the debate. Thanks, and I look forward to your thoughts, TheronJ 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Heading Change
You should be aware of this edit I recently made, as it may effect your polling response. I made the edit in response to concerns on the talk page about the neutrality of the question. Cheers! Hipocrite - « Talk » 16:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

N
I made a long comment on the N talk p., and I wonder if you;'d comment on how you think the rule should go--I cannot quite decipher it from the very convoluted discussions there. We may actually have very close views. My feeling is: a/a general criterion, which has to be something as general as "worth being in a 21st century ency.", then examples, and for many subjects a set of safe harbor rules above with something will always be N., but not implying that failing to meet them means not-N. A example of an existing rule of the sort is members of national legislatures, or Nobel Prize winners, or NYT best sellers, I'll see your answer here if you prefer it that way.. DGG 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I'll comment more there, I think we're going to have to recentralize the discussion soon, but my preference is "The subject is covered in independent sufficient reliable sources," or something similar. Sufficiency for "notability" needs to be the standard, not the amount of sources, simply the quality of "reliable" information. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The photocopied article you have, is it the one that starts "Hh called himself "America's Fearless Young Showman" and he wasn't kidding. A positive thinking supersalesman, he made dozens of millions of dollars promoting some of the worst films imaginable into box-office champions." It then spends about 19 paragraphs discussing Mom and Dad. Also, yes, that convoluted talk page is difficult to follow -- what is it that you have an issue with and why? Multiple? Non-trivial? Independent? (Reply here, please) -- Dragonfiend 04:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the one - I guess I read what it's about differently, but I've also seen so many books and articles about him at this point I see articles about his films and his production/presentation process as separate things. My issue, as stated above, is simply that "multiple, non-trivial" is an absurd standard to use, especially since it's being unfairly forced on the lower guidelines that exist for a reason.  A better alternative would be "sufficient reliable," which can establish "notability" without running afoul of the core policies OR expecting more than the core policies call for.  We can't rely on exceptions to get things by when we can do better, and should do better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something. Do you think a single source, a trival source, or even a single trivial source would be "sufficient"? "Sufficient" just seems to be a more vague way of saying the same thing as "multiple, non-trivial." Or maybe I don't know what you mean by "sufficient." Would it be possible to work on working whatever you think is "sufficient" with whatever others think are "non-trivial"? -- Dragonfiend 05:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A single source could be "sufficient" for "notability." A "trivial source" on its own probably can't, but four of five could.  Right now, one book or massive article on a subject doesn't meet the criteria if that's all there is, but it would certainly be "notable" and the source would be "sufficient" for "notability."  Keep in mind, we're only trying to establish "notability" here, the rest only needs to worry about WP:V and WP:RS, which these BS "primary criteria" try and trump.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the way I've looked it is that since claims of notability are almost by definition controversial claims, they need to be well sourced -- "one source thinks it's notable" doesn't seem very notable. I guess I'm having trouble wrapping my head around a topic being noteworthy, yet only being noted by one source. Do you have particular topics in mind that are only noted in one source? I do think the WP:N guideline could make more clear where along the range between 1 sentence and 360 pages "non-trivial" falls. -- Dragonfiend 05:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish I did, because it would certainly strengthen my argument, wouldn't it? "Notability" shouldn't be that controversial in my mind, because it's so genre-specific, and something is "notable" before the mainstream catches up with it - using the fickle "old media" as the bar is rather silly in the information age.  There's a lot of nuance to it that we're simply abandoning for a one-size-fits-all mentality designed to keep information out rather than bring more information in, and that's problematic to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy history
Hi, Badlydrawnjeff.

I've been loosely following the dispute resolution process between yourself and Radiant!. There's an idea I thought of a little while ago, that you and/or Radiant might be interested in, and I thought now's as good a time as any to mention it.

The background is that, in the interactions I've seen between the two of you on guideline talk pages, I've noticed that you'll both claim that your understanding of policy formation is firmly grounded in experience with guideline development. That strikes me as an empirical question, and one that I think it would be quite interesting to investigate.

What do you think of working up a page where we summarize the histories of several policy pages, guideline pages and essays, and take note of the various roles played by description of existing practice, straw polls, tags, etc. It would probably be of interest to many to see how some of our most broadly agreed upon principles acquired the consensus support they enjoy, and by what path some of our more controversial pages have navigated their turbulent waters.

I set up an empty template at User:GTBacchus/Policy formation the other day. It think it could be a page that might facilitate a productive interaction between you and Radiant, with side benefits for the rest of Wikipedia, and for any sociologist who wants to puzzle out just how this lunatic-run asylum operates and grows. What do you think? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't ignored this, for the record, I'm simply thinking about it. Don't be alarmed! --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry; I'm neither alarmed nor in a hurry. I'll probably edit the page myself quite slowly, and anytime you or Radiant or anybody else wants to drop by and edit or comment, that'll be great.  Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick RFAR
Jeff, just a quick note: you are a gentleman and a scholar. If you, the fearless protector of the unloved article, can see no evidence that Nick is any worse than the norm, then I am reassured that his perhaps slightly more than usually deletionist tendencies can be mellowed with experience. Sometimes even people we respect turn out to do something that astonished by its coolness, your comment was one of those things. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, he's one of the good eggs. i disagree with him, but I know where he's coming from, and at least some kudos for that, y'know?  Hope your broadband sorts itself soon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've C&Ped the statements from the RfA to Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) on the basis that there seems to be agreement that the issue should be taken up in RfC. You may wish to ratify, modify, withdraw, etc your statement if you have made one, or add a statement if you have not. Balancer 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * In case you are wondering where it has gone, your DYK article was included in an update earlier today, but I replaced it with another entry to avoid all of them being US-related.  It should appear in the next update at about 6 hours after the message above. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the messages there, thanks for the update regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh good :) Nice article, by the way. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 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 07:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vile Dark Lord
Are you trying to get WP:N and related pages to express thoughts about notability that you agree with? This may not be a very good goal to have- aren't your notions of notability pretty far off from mainstream thinking on this topic? I'm not suggesting at all that your input is unwanted - in fact, if there was something you AND the rest of the project could agree on, this would be outstanding, but this seems unlikely to me. But, do you think it'd be good to maybe slow down a little? Also, (and again I'm sure you've heard this all before) remember that the question of what content belongs in an encyclopedia is different from the question of which articles belong. Merging (which, for reasons I admit I don't understand, you seem to be generally against) is a good way to deal with non-notable subjects without deleting content. Instead of having exhaust manifold of a 74 Pinto, significant details about that exhaust manifold can go in Ford Pinto as appropriate. Anyway, just food for thought. Friday (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. If I wanted them to be what I agreed with, you'd see an entirely different tack.  Thanks for the good faith, though, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? What makes you mention good faith?  Obviously you're doing what you think is best, I just frequently disagree because to me, what you think is best appears to be having no requirements for sourcing.  Using sources instead of being the source is what makes this an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding me. Please, just stop already, if you can't get my positions right, refrain from commenting on them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers
I just thought I would tell you that I fully support you and everything you're doing for Brian Peppers. --Dookama 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Turk
Well done! Now turn off the computer and go out to a good restaurant. -- Hoary 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way...
Thanks for fighting my battle while I was down. Despite your valiant efforts, all Bella Morte albums were deleted. I am currently fighting to restore the articles.

While we're at it, there's talk that Gopal Metro's page may get deleted. Help out if you can.

Thanks, best of luck. --Emevas 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Consider this the closest thing to a "right to disappear" as you'll get from me. If I'm ever to come back, it won't be from this name, and it will be when the culture has changed in a way that makes giving what I have to offer worth it. Thanks to those of you who have stepped up and helped out over the years. The rest of you, well... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sad to see you go jeff. I hope you do come back.  GRBerry 01:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am probably closer to your position on inclusionism than 80% of the people here, and have thought you were playing a useful role on this project, whether or not I agreed with you in every given instance. (I don't think anyone agreed with you in every given instance.) Sorry to see you go. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Take care, Jeff, and please do come back. We need ya. Kla'quot 01:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see you go, Jeff. You've been a great asset to Wikipedia, and you'll be missed.  I wish you the best of luck, in whatever you do when you're not editing the Wiki. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bloody deletionists... 31337 03:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you come back too. For as much as you and I tended to disagree, sometimes you're the only one tempering a decision that might have otherwise gone too far. If you do go, you'll be missed. (I promise to put in a good word for Kroger Babb, but I'm doubting he'll show up on AfD.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 16:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go... Hopefully after a break you will return with renewed vigor. Even though you and are pretty far apart philosophically here, I always felt you were a good balance for the project.--Isotope23 18:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Grand  master  ka  17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action
Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you (clearly, you supported my right to express my opinion, so long as I did not make improper edits or such), nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Requests_for_arbitration

--GordonWatts 08:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw your post here wondering why I named you as a party. Even though you did nothing wrong, the rules (as I understand them) require I notify all parties, and this post by you on 01:34, 21 Feb 2007 at the Community board, involved you. Thank you for your input in these matters.--GordonWatts 15:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I viewed it more from the Schiavo perspective. Good luck in whatever you end up with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the understanding and feedback. Take care,--GordonWatts 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: I noticed this positive comment by NY Brad, the clerk, and I figured I would add my voice to his. Although I am guessing you might be too busy to edit regularly and contribute (as I say in my post, remembering how I myself sometimes am "too busy"), nonetheless, while I am alive and posting (which will not be forever), I will do my little bit to put in a positive word of encouragement for whatever is your endeavor and wish you the best of luck and blessings.--GordonWatts 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Turk
Congratulations on getting The Turk to FA status. It's a great article and I enjoyed reading it. &mdash; BillCtalk 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, Bill. It was a fun article to work on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 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 08:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Snowballs
I'm a bit sad to hear you might be leaving for a bit, I had hoped that some sort of amicable agreement or at least more understanding could happen sooner or later. Anyway, this is something that you might be pleased with, especially if it continues to gain support. --Interiot 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone just notified me of this. I have to say I'm incredibly shocked by it, and really gives me more hope than I've had in recent weeks.  I'll keep monitoring it in any regard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I must say, the proposed decision on this case and the direction it's heading, along with the principles, is possibly the most positive thing I've seen in ages. This is amazing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hamilton Stands
Interesting AfD that goes to the core of the notability discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Zocky
I would urge you to forgive and forget unless you can identify a pattern of disruption or willful abuse. (If you can, your consideration of recall would make more sense, but please don't go into it here.) Single actions, made in good faith, should practically never be cause to desysop a user. Just my two cents, Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you don't understand the pandemic of administrative abuse we have here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. In any case I am not aware that Zocky is a part of it, or that this is more than an isolated incident. I don't know that he is being too reasonable about it, and he definitely misused the tools, but mistakes are a par for the course with human beings at the helm. A single incident of bad judgment, even very bad judgment, can usually be forgotten, especially when no lasting harm is done. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion, please...
As Wikipedia's resident internet meme-ologist, I'd like you to see if you agree with my removal of a "notability" tag on My Box in a Box. It seems to meet WP:WEB, but I defer to your judgement. Cheers.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaperon (headgear)
Hi, You may remember you kindly passed this for Good Article on 11 Jan. It seems there was some problem with the formalities, because of which it is now up for review again here (the article is essentially the same). Comments welcome. Johnbod 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 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 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

question
Would you like to join Conservapedia as a editor? Conservapedia is looking for good editors and Admins. Please send me your email if you want to join Conservapedia. If you feel reticient about giving out your email address you can simply create a new account at hotmail and yahoo so you don't risk getting a lot of junk mail. Regional123 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Regional123
 * Thanks, but I'd get banned in no time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled across you
while doing something to do with User:Peanuts5402 and it seemed to me that you were making sense, so I stopped in at your User Page and actually took the time to read it. I didn't understand everything because I have been one of those editors who has chosen NOT to look at what is going on behind the curtain. But more and more the curtain has seemed to move and I've been trying to decide whether or not to just slip out the back door. When I had a section in the phallus article on "Phallic architecture" removed as being the dreaded original research because I needed an expert to say that a particular building, or group of them, looked like penises, I though "this is about it." So I sort of took heart from your pages and thought, "Is there a group of like minded wikipedians that I can get in with about some of this stuff?" Okay, I am not a conservative. Not even close, but when i find myself making common cause with one, well than I know that the problem is for real. If I can help you out, if you are looking for votes or backing or whatever, consider giving me a call.. Wikipedia is (opinion) supposed to be fun. When it no longer is, I'll be looking elsewhere. Carptrash 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. This is a great project, if it weren't for a good chunk of the people.  Don't be afraid to get your hands dirty and do what's right.  You'll be fine.  I look forward to working with you, if you know anything about Robert Benchley, that's my next major project if you want to pitch in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm. I just ran into Benchley somewhere, not too long ago.  My strength is my personal library (mostly sculpture, but other art stuff too) and I don't have anything by/about him, but . . ...... somewhere? Carptrash 02:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for help with proposal
I'm currently working on a draft proposal that I hope can solve the fiction conundrum. Your comments would be much appreciated. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy kept article.
Just FYI, it was Pockets of resistance. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm rather shocked an article with such shoddy referecning made DYK. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Prince of Peace
Hello ,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the   template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. And here I thought super admin backlog was the most irritating template ever. &mdash;Cryptic 22:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No shit. I've gotten this one once before, I figured the stub sorters enjoyed the gnoming.  I certainly don't have the energy to learn all the stub classes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff
Hi Jeff. I know you and Friday have history and I can see you're upset. I think your last post on his page was somewhat unfair, given that he was trying to apologise. I can understand what it was that irritated you in the tail of the apology, but I think that a cooler Jeff would have been absolutely fine about it. Anyway, please take this comment in the way it's intended - respectful and sad to see two fine contributors in conflict. --Dweller 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No more bullshit. Check my archives if you want to see what I'm dealing with, and why I refuse to anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Heck, I'm worried about you. You're all fired up. At the moment, you seem like an argument waiting to happen. If someone actually deliberately tried to piss you off right now... I'm gonna stop posting to you though, unless you'd like, because I'm worried you'll take offence at me too and my only intention's to calm things down, not add to your stress. Anyway, I'll be offline for a couple of days now. Have a good weekend. Cheers, --Dweller 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm in a good place. You're not pissing me off, I just don't appreciate being condescended to, especially by someone who a) should know better, and b) has a consistent history.  If your intention is to calm things down, there's a certain someone's behavior that could use modification. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Popped back in) OK. I'll have a word with the person I guess you're referring to. --Dweller 16:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good articles
Congrats on your second featured article. Since you've pushed 3+ into good article territory, judging by your brag board, could you tell me, like, how to do it? I listed Uncyclopedia on WP:GAC like a week ago and nothing has happened, which leads me to believe I did something wrong or forgot a step. The instructions for nominating are most confusing, so I figured I'd ask someone with experience. Milto LOL pia 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * haha! Honestly?  Pick a subject no one gives a shit about, find a book or three that has information on everything regarding that subject, and go to town.  As long as the language is coherent and it's well-referenced, GA usually isn't a problem to achieve, FA is a nightmare, though.  The easiest way to do it is to find a way to be left alone while doing it.  Cooperation is only helpful when people are on the same page, something you'll never get with stuff like Uncyclopedia.  I'll help wherever I can though, let me know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I detect a hint of Wikicynicism? Anyway, I'm more wondering about the process than the quality aspect, I've done all I have the talent to do on the article for now (which was just deleting crap until it was well-sourced).  Do I just list it and wait til someone with the interest votes for it, or do I have to do something else as well?  Milto LOL pia 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, list and wait. The backlog is consistently absurd, but if you review a few in the area you added it to, it'll get done faster. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Refreshing Point-of-View
I followed you to your user page -- User:Badlydrawnjeff -- from your notes on "The Strategy Paradox" deletion review. The Wikipedia is a complex organism. I find the amount of negativity and agressive behavior to be banal. Your point-of-view is refreshing and I admire your spirit. Best wishes on your quest to make the Wikipedia better for the masses; leaving the few antagonists in your wake. Bluestripe 13:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability and other synonyms
I applaud your efforts, and wish that I could be as persistent at it. Something will have to be done, for the various pages seem in conflict--eg N(general) is stricter than N(people), but most of the people subclassifications are stricter than the main rules. What particularly bothers me is the 2 sources, and nothing more. Everything in the world has two non-trivial sources. I'm generally a so-called inclusionist--up to a point, and my feeling is that you are as well, though not necessarily over the same things. Since the real problem is the same old in/ex debate, and the views are both principled, and will never agree, we cannot get a consensus, but at best a compromise which will still allow everyone to interpret it their own way in argument. Any ideas on how to do it? I now just watch for your comments and try to support them. DGG 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with requring sources- it seems like a no-brainer. But It appears that people are trying to use the lack of sources now when some effort could be made to find them with the proper person later as an excuse to remove content. I have issues with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nofollow
Per your issues, does nofollow really not apply to links to Wikia? If so, that's scandalous. David Mestel(Talk) 11:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it didn't when they set it up, I don't know if they fixed it or not. It also turns out that the nofollow has dropped a number of useful links completely off of Google's first page, but answers.com is still near the top.  Why is that interesting?  The Foundation gets a cut of their ad revenue.  It's really kind of sad. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How do they get a cut of Answers.com's ad revenue? Surely they can use it under the GFDL for free? David Mestel(Talk) 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's some bizarre agreement they have. Here's the press release. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a first ...
... on a DRV, I think I've out-inclusioned even you. See Deletion review/Log/2007 March 11. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be damned. I haven't taken a close look at the subject itself anyway, though, so I'll probably be right alongside you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Now if only I could convince you that articles that threaten to damage people's lives by being here are in a different category from everything else, we could start to make greater progress. Newyorkbrad 03:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Won't happen anytime soon. Not when we're not able to use blogs as sources, at least.  I won't be sliding down the BLP slippery slope any further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

U of I Observatory
I was wondering if you had any comments about the article that you could post on the talk page as a "GA Review," without such, many GAs will be challenged later. Thanks. IvoShandor 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it, I suppose. I didn't really have much to offer in the way of commentary, which is why I didn't leave anything, but I'll hop on over later on and see if I can expand at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good deal, you know just something along the lines as to how it matched up to the criteria. That kind of thing. I would just rather avoid a lengthy process at GAR, since it waited awhile as is. Thanks again for the review in the first place sir. IvoShandor 16:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 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 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Revenge of the Wannabes: A Clique Novel
As the page histories are unrelated (no cut and paste from one article to the other), I have simply redirected this. If there is useful content in the history of the redirect and somedbody wants to use it in Revenge of the Wannabes, the redirect should be tagged R from merge. But at the moment, neither the tagging nor deletion seem to be necessary to me. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. This one was too complicated for me to figure out, so thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Papelbon
Thank you for sourcing that. I actually misread the anon's edit. I thought he was claiming that Papelbon was going back to the bullpen. My eyes (and typing fingers) fly ahead of my brain sometimes. Thanks again. -- No Guru 02:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob. It was actually harder for me to find the source than I thought it would have been. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you an admin?
If not, the tag should not be removed until admin review. 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, anyone can remove a speedy deletion tag. Please review WP:CSD, specifically A7, as you appear to have tagged it improperly.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, they are a band. If you oppose CsD, then you need to use the hang-on tag which you just placed on it. Notability is not asserted in my mind. Ronbo76 18:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. First, A7 is avoided by an assertion of notability, which this article provides. Second, any editor - except the person who created the article - can remove a speedy deletion tag. I've added the hangon as opposed to edit warring over it with you, but I'm entirely correct. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that notability is weak, but an uninvolved editor can add or remove a speedy tag, within reason. Being an admin means you have the admin buttons, nothing else. Friday (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Gah!
I must be mad. --Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Renetto
The article was just a stub supported by the refs. Here is a copy of it with some formating changed for this talk page (feel free to delete this at any time)--Oakshade 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC):

Renetto, is a popular YouTube personality created and played by Paul Robinett. His videos have attracted 1.19 million views, plus over 23,000 suscribers. The character of Renetto is that of a high-voiced and rather unintelligent reviewer of mostly other YouTube videos. He first gained notoriety by a video in which he attempted to eat Mentos and drink Diet Coke at the same time.

He is based in Columbus, Ohio. References: Further reading:
 * Oh, I don't doubt it. I was hoping you'd post them there.  d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just did. The whole article was for general reference (I can't even link to it since it was instantly deleted!),--Oakshade 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it. I don't think the two prior AfDs helped the case much, but it looks like this should have been looked at better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The last AfD was almost 3 months ago, closed under very dubious circumstances IMHO, and the NYT ref was new so it was time to start to set things right. --Oakshade 03:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The last AfD was almost 3 months ago, closed under very dubious circumstances IMHO, and the NYT ref was new so it was time to start to set things right. --Oakshade 03:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant
I didn't want to go overboard with threaded discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Article_inclusion but I'm curious. When you say "sources are not what makes a subject encyclopedic/appropriate for inclusion" what DOES make it appropriate then? If it's not what the sources are saying, what's left? Individual editors' own personal notions of significance? Isn't this what we want to get away from? Friday (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no clue as to why I'm continuing to feed this today, especially since we've been through this and the answer is written right below your response: An article may have to be removed because of a lack of sources, but that doesn't mean the subject of the article is inappropriate. Should we keep unsourced articles?  No.  Does an article about an encyclopedic subject that lacks sources be removed?  Yes.  Do the lack of said sources make the subject unencyclopedic?  Of course not, because the appropriateness of the subject has zero to do with the sources and everything to do with, well, a variety of things, depending on the subject.  A top 10 song, regardless of how much or little is written about it, is always appropriate/encyclopedic for our purposes.  A film starring a major actor, regardless of the amount of attention it gets, is always appropriate/encyclopedic for our purposes.  The sources are what simply allows these encyclopedic/appropriate articles to meet our standard policies.  Get it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, in real life these other things count. But this isn't real life, this is Wikipedia.  Here, we don't do direct personal observation of the world - it's outside our scope.  We use sources instead.  It doesn't matter to us what sources should cover- we only consider what they have covered.  Does that make any sense?  Friday (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. Not in the context you're presenting it, of course.  I knew I shouldn't have taken the bait.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Creation of "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" disambiguation page
Hey there, it's me. I just wanted to let you know that I created a disambiguation page for The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. I'm telling you here because the main series article's talk page link doesn't seem to work. So...yeah. Raven23 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I think I fixed it, but I'm not sure we need a disambiguation if we have a main page for the series. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural History of South Asia mailing list
This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it .

Thanks in advance Atulsnischal 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A Week in the Woods
I respectfully disagree. The author of a book has little bearing on whether the book is notable in its own right. Two other admins have speedy-deleted the article before, so I feel I'm on pretty safe ground here. If you insist, please consider WP:DRV. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. You're still not using CSD properly, and I implore you to read A7 closely in the future.  DRV we go. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And the reason for the salting? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Weekinthewoods.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Weekinthewoods.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Fair use and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nardman1 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding me, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Beginning to look like harassment to me.--Docg 01:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a rationale. Far as I can tell that nomination for speedy delete was bad faith. The [[WP:FUC] specifically allows for identification: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."


 * I have no idea how this didn't meet the fair use criteria. There are book covers all over the WIki to illustrate articles. Bizarre. IvoShandor 12:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah. I've been making articles like that for a year and a half with no problems, it was probably a reaction to my questioning his tagging of the book for speedy, which has since been resolved.  Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Woods
Hm, it says "undeleted - deletion endorsed", that's rather weird. Fixed now, and unprotected. Happy editing.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sir. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

FreeCol
thanks for fixing the nom and for your support Kc4 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A Week in the Woods
If you can provide any scenario in which that article was going to be deleted, I'll concur that I shouldn't have closed it early! And Newyorkbrad disagrees with you too ;) --Steve (Stephen)talk 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Princess Diaries
Why are you so insistent on keeping The Princess Diaries Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight? I don't want to get into an editing war. 137.238.121.34 03:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's a highly noteworthy book. If you don't want to edit war, don't - explain why you think a merge is necessary on the talk page, try to build consensus, or AfD it. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did AfD it, months ago, and I explained why I think deletion and/or a merge is necessary but you continue to delete any nomination for deletion I post. It is hardly a noteworthy book. Rather it is a book that is part of a noteworthy series. This page provides nothing except blatant plot summary and does not benefit Wikipedia at all. Clearly nobody has bothered to improve on it. Instead they create new pages for other books in the series with only one sentence descriptions. If someone needs a summary of every single book in this series, they can go to Google. 137.238.121.34 03:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You've attempted a proposed deletion, not an AfD nomination. I disagree with your rationale, and eventually, each book should be covered.  See book notability for more information.  Again, you're free to nominate it as an AfD, but you won't get far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The only list item that this book qualifies for is: "# The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country." and the movie that it was made into was not even based on its plot. This isn't Harry Potter. If you want this page so badly, maybe you should try revising it and making it better. 137.238.121.34 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's on my list. By the way, it also qualifies for the multiple reviews and historical significance - Meg Cabot being one of the most important YA authors of her time, even if the books are somewhat fluffy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I support what you are saying here - but the article really needs moer content to demonstrate the notability and cite the reviews you mention. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Princess Diaries deletions
The plot summary and infobox for The Princess Diaries were deleted here - I figured out eventually that you're going for a main article/subarticle structure. Good. Since the article was granted an article grade of B _with these items_ something like them should remain - a different Infobox, and a Series Description(in place of Plot Summary). I'd like to discuss improvements with you on the article's talk page. I support a page per book in the series (as you seem to do), at least until I figure out how to create subpages or tabs. It's up to more editors to add plots for the remaining novels. --Lexein 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I can't give you much to work with right now, but I can tell you that we're on the same page (one page to cover the series, page for each of the books, no page for the characters at this point) in terms of what we're aiming for.  When I get back from my honeymoon, I'll definitely chime in more (BTW, the plot summary/infobox for that page got moved to The Princess Diaries (novel)), but a better overview is in my longer-term plan, especially since I'm caught up reading the books now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Cheshirecheesepressmonument.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cheshirecheesepressmonument.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. IvoShandor 04:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry man. This one is no good for the Wiki, it is licensed under CC 2.0 (Share alike) which prohibits commercial use, which is a no go for Wikipedia because it's content can be copied by anyone, including commercial sources. Fair use wouldn't apply unless that place no longer exists. IvoShandor 04:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Aw hell. Ah well.  Delete away, I suppose, I didn't catch it was a verboten license.  Back to the drawing board... --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah sorry man. I know that is a GAC (that's how I noticed it but not til my third read through of the article so I can see how you missed it). Btw, I am making some notes and I have to say it is probably going to fail as of now, I can hold it (which I don't really like doing) and post the notes on the article talk page if you would prefer. It may need some work so it's up to you whether you just want me to review it and fail it or put it on hold. IvoShandor 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm actually looking for some notes. I'm trying to get some pointers on this one because even I'm a little lost, so extra input is worthwhile. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sooo, hold or . . . IvoShandor 04:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind...d;-D --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger that. I will post what I have already written down in my handy notepad directly, probably on that talk page so all can see, we should correspond about the article there.IvoShandor 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, notes posted. May add more as I see. IvoShandor 04:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, this may help. This link is how I personally (usually) apply the six GA criteria, I know several editors have a similar style, so keep it in mind. It has a lot of pertinent policy and MOS links and such that will help too. IvoShandor 04:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Similar style, you know, minus a few tweaks here or there. Some like it hot and some like it when the heat is on, or something like that, I am less strict on MOS than a lot of people but try to follow it I guess. IvoShandor 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 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 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cecily von Ziegesar novels
I notice these articles are up for notibility review - They need some defense if they are notable. Just thought I'd draw this to your attention. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's going to keep adding the tags regardless. There's really no question, so I'm not worrying about it right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Might be better to add a fuller article, then another fuller article, rather than just loads of stubs. The stubs are not really adding much information and are likely to get more attention from the deletionists. I don't take a different view from you, just different tactics. Also can you try to add "Categories" and the relevant stub notices. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  08:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't play with categories. I don't understand which ones they are or how they work, and there are plenty of other people who do a better job of it.  I've been doing it this way for two years, I'm not seeing any reason to adjust at this point, but thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Question for an inclusionist
As you are one of Wikipedia's most prolific inclusionists (I see you on policy page discussions everywhere), I have chosen you to ask a question to that I've been wondering about. There's a common attitude I've noticed among inclusionists of doom and gloom and horror, as if a terrible disaster is going on which must be stopped immediately before all of Wikipedia collapses into dust, or some such thing. What seems odd about this to me is that... you're winning! Not only are inclusionists winning, they're winning big, their victories greatly outnumbering their defeats day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. If Wikipedia were shrinking in size, I could see the inclusionists being unhappy, but Wikipedia is increasing in size exponentially, by 700,000 articles a year. Every article of interest to more than one person which ever gets deleted will eventually be recreated, and categories of articles which were once considered unencylopedic become acceptable simply by sheer force of numbers. If one or ten articles of a certain type considered unacceptable get written, they are all deleted. If 100 get written, they might get deleted. If 1000 get written, everyone throws up their hands and says, "We can't possibly delete this many, what to do, what to do?", and a new category of articles is now acceptable. The sheer volume of articles pouring in every day is outpacing anything the deletionists can do. Given all of this, the expected emotional state of inclusionists should be one of triumphant joyfullness, as the success of their view of of what Wikipedia should be is inevitable. We have 1.7 million articles today, in a few years we'll be up to 3 million, barring a collapse of western civilization or the internet. So why are inclusionists so unhappy? If we had 1.8 million today, instead of having to wait 45 days to reach this number, would things be all that much better? --Xyzzyplugh 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are we so unhappy? Well, I can only speak for myself - we can do better.  Yes, our growth is going great, and that's a positive thing, but when you know that the project can do better, you can't help but continue to feel negative.  Take a look at the redlink farm on my userpage, for instance.  A lot of those probably would never meet the standard for films or relative notability that people who don't generally fall into an exlusionist/inclusionist divide advocate.  Yet they're all verifiable, they're all noteworthy for their genre, and should generally have a place here.  Why be pleased at being able to include all Hollywood movies, and most b-movies, when you should be able to include all Hollywood movies and all b-movies without sacrificing quality, y'know?  I think we'll be happy once we know that the deletion processes aren't going to continue to tilt toward removing good content (which it still does) and when the general standards for inclusion are reasonable (which we're coming much closer to than I ever thought we would). --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're sticking around
A few weeks ago you said something about leaving, now it looks like you're planning to stick around after your honeymoon. Congratulations on that, by the way! Anyway, I'm glad you're still around. Good luck, dark lord. :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a couple weeks off didn't hurt, and neither did how we generally handled a few issues. Gave me faith that I'm not completely off-track. How's life treating you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The last few days I seem to be caught up in not just one but two issues on WP:AN/I. Both about well meaning editors who decided that reading policy is enough, talking with people was unnecessary, and if you make a few mistakes when overenthusiastically deleting other people's work, that's no big deal. They have good intentions, but don't communicate with others well, and end up causing havoc in their wake. I'm kind of hoping I don't end up having to indefinitely block one or both. One is actually an admin, but did proportionally more damage. It's a mess. The week before I advised a number of FACs and Peer Reviews, that was fun. You know there was a time I actually wrote articles? It's been so long I'm not sure about that... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this "Great Global Warming Swindle" mess reminded me why I stopped editing political articles and started in on exploitation film. Ugh.  Actually, right now, I'm in YA-novel hell.  You could do me a HUGE favor if you're up for it - I think I'm the only one with the Gossip Girl, The It Girl, and The Clique series books on his/her watchlist.  They've been intermittent vandal targets, so if you can keep your eye on them for me while I'm gone, you'd be a saint.
 * Meanwhile, when I get back, my next project is either Ed Wood or Robert Benchley, if you want a preview of what I'll be hounding you about...d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
Don't get wrapped up in back and forth Argument Clinic: if the thread gets too long, admins are just going to ignore it as too much bother. Go ahead and let Mongo have the last word if he takes it. -- TedFrank 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input at the article in any regard, it's been a while since I've had this sort of political frustration. Reminds me why I stopped editing at Michael Moore last year. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

 * Hey, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves 2007 Season
Hi, I put up a request for this page to be deleted but now think that may have been an error. My first couple of searches did not bring up similar articles for other teams and their 2007 season, but they do actually exist, see 2007 Kansas City Royals season or 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season for example--there's a whole category actually. In other words I think the article probably should be reinstated instead of directing to Atlanta Braves. Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace 19:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be damned. In that case, I'd check to see if there were prior AfDs first and take it from there.  I'm kind of surprised, I can't imagine these pages being especially useful for us except in unique circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, such articles seem a bit frivolous, but apparently they're all under the auspices of WikiProject Baseball which is "trying to create season articles for every MLB team for the upcoming 2007 season." There actually is already an article for the 2007 Atlanta Braves season, which the editor who created the now defunct Atlanta Braves 2007 Season apparently did not notice.  So though the article fits into a larger project it was right to delete it since it already existed under a slightly different name (if anything Atlanta Braves 2007 Season should be redirected into 2007 Atlanta Braves season rather than simply Atlanta Braves as it is now but I don't know how to do that).  Thanks for your help (I'll leave a note about this on the other user's talk page) and I'm going to swear off baseball related articles for awhile.--Bigtimepeace 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if the Wikiproject thinks it's a good idea, I'm not going to stand in the way, but I wonder if they plan on doing them for the other seasons (2006, 1983, 1942 etc), too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt they will go backwards in time to 1983 etc., but rather simply do such articles from 2007 onward. It seems unnecessary but there's an increasing trend for articles of that kind (e.g. "Season Three of some obscure TV show!") on wikipedia so it's not really surprising.--Bigtimepeace 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara
I think the tag you put up there was a very good idea, and have protected the page for the time being because that's what the template said. Cheers!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Kinda moot given that someone decided to shut down discussion, but at least there's some directive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say go to the next day; it's not really that important, but that gives a clean break from the FUD that permeated the first portion of the DRV. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I ended up doing after conferring with a few people and reading your edit summary. Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

dos cosas
Congrats on your approaching nuptials, man, and my deepest sympathies about having to move house. Have a great honeymoon. A Train take the 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The move has actually, for the most part, been a tiring but decent experience.  It'll just be a wild ride leading up to the wedding... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

2 things
Re : I've left a message on the talk page that I hope you'll answer: you seem pretty sure its in the film so I presume you know where.

Re global warming, I left you an answer on my talk page, which I hope you'll respond to

William M. Connolley 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On the former, I'll be paying attention to the talk page. On the latter, I hadn't seen it, and I'm out the door for a while in roughly 5 minutes, so I'll get back to you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for bringing needed sense to the Renetto DRV. The whole effort should've been unessesary, but a small amount of users managed to, for a while, impose their beliefs on the project. --Oakshade 03:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob. Sometimes you have to be persistent when it comes to things people have an inherent bias about.  Thanks for keeping at it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 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 13:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed notability tag
It would seem I am, in fact, missing the portion of the talk page on WP:N that is host to the substanital objection to the general criteria section. If you could point it out to me (I'm not being sarcastic, I really can't find it) I would be most appreciative. The last thing I want to do is get into a back and forth over edit summaries. Thanks man. NeoFreak 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd start here, continue here, and most recently here. The most recent archive has some more detailed discussion from January and February, and, while it doesn't factor into my tagging/reverting, discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article inclusion has been very useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll start in them. With the mess that is that talk page it hard to find just what you're looking for. NeoFreak 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. The dispute over the central/primary wording is what prompted the so-far-well-recieved Article inclusion, so I invite your input there, as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it took me only a couple minutes to realize that there is enough recent dissent from enough people to warrant a disputed tag, my apologies on the revert. I'll probably see you over at AI (something I've been avoiding simply to keep my brain from exploding) in the near future. Thanks again. NeoFreak 14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I assumed a misunderstanding. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles about words
I'm asking various people about this, maybe you can give me your opinion as well. We on Wikipedia handle articles about words differently than we handle probably every other type of article. In general, we keep or delete articles based not on their current quality, but on whether the subject is notable/has reliable sources available. However, when it comes to articles about words (Thou, You), we keep or delete them based on what they look like at the moment. A low quality stub about a scientific topic or historical person will be kept in the hopes that one day someone comes along and cleans it up and writes a good article on it, whereas a low quality stub about a word, or even often an average article on a word, is transwikied to wiktionary and deleted. However, a high quality article on a word is kept.

Does this make sense? I'm not even sure what our policy on word articles should be, but this practice to me seems inappropriate, given that it's exactly the opposite of how we operate in every other way. And, I've written an essay about this, Articles about words, if you feel like it, read it and see if I've accurately described our current practice. --Xyzzyplugh 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to keep this on my talk page - I may not be able to get to it in a reasonable way until after Easter. If you want my quick and dirty - we should have articles on words if they can, at some point, be expanded past a dicdef. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll chime in, why not? IMO articles about words are pretty much awesome, but there isn't much of a point in stubbing every word in existence, that's crazy. To me, they should be added as users are willing to create them and expand them beyond a simple dictionary def (etymology etc, usage etc.), that way they avoid the deletionists.IvoShandor 06:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Betacommand
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)