User talk:Badlydrawnjeff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment here and I reply here. If I comment at your talk page, reply there. I don't play chasing games. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a question about something I've done, read this first. If you don't understand it, then ask. If I remove your comment without warning, you're part of the problem, and need to shape up. That's all there is to it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

• /Archive1: All of 2005.
• /Archive2: January 2006 -> April 2006.
• /Archive3: May 2006 -> June 2006.
• /Archive4: July 2006 -> August 2006.
• /Archive5: September 2006
• /Archive6: October 2006 -> November 2006
• /Archive7: December 2006 -> January 2007
• /Archive8: February 2007 -> March 2007

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wiki Judge

		I AM THE LAW!!!
		I hereby award you the status of Wiki-Judge for your astute realization that WP:IAR is nothing more than a means to unilaterally circumvent policy and common civility. "The role of "Judge" combines those of judge and police officer, thus avoiding long legal wrangles by allowing for criminals editors to be tried and sentenced on the spot" - WeniWidiWiki 03:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The Prince of Peace

Hello Badlydrawnjeff,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} 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. —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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] This is a first ...

... on a DRV, I think I've out-inclusioned even you. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 11#Matball. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Gah!

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

[edit] 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.^[1] 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.^[2]

He is based in Columbus, Ohio. References:

1. ^ Tedeschi, Bob. "E-Commerce Report; New Hot Properties: YouTube Celebrities", The New York Times, February 26, 2007.
2. ^ Carney, Brian M.. "Fact or Fiction?", The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2006.

Further reading:

• Williams, Felicia. "Renetto Expresses His Thoughts on Commercialization", The Daily Reel, November 9, 2006.

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)

[edit] Not sure what you meant

I didn't want to go overboard with threaded discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Article_inclusion#WP:N_and_WP:AI 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] DYK

On 18 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Piers Corbyn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural History of South Asia mailing list

This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it [1] .

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Weekinthewoods.jpg

This file may be deleted.

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 Wikipedia: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.--Doc^g 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)

[edit] Woods

Hm, it says "undeleted - deletion endorsed", that's rather weird. Fixed now, and unprotected. Happy editing. >Radiant< 11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FreeCol

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Cheshirecheesepressmonument.jpg

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)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service. Awarded by Addhoc 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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! >Radiant< 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 2 things

Re [2]: 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)

[edit] ASUE

Hello, Badlydrawnjeff and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3Clamster 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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, Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

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

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

[edit] WP:AI

Hi, just telling you that I opened a strawpoll on this proposal at WT:AI. I proposed a poll earlier and no one seemed to object. I hope you don't mind - probably I should have asked you specifically first (as it's your proposal originally) prior to opening the poll. My own vote is Neutral, as I can see both advantages and disadvantages to the proposal compared to WP:N. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Have a wonderful honeymoon. Durova^Charge! 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. Hbdragon88 05:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)