User:Bdj/Projects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is my projects area, where I'm holding information for merging or personal projects.

  • For my attempt at bringing R.E.M. to WP:FA status, see User:Badlydrawnjeff/Projects/R.E.M.. It needs major citation overhaul.
  • User:Badlydrawnjeff/The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga . It was well-sourced when written, but we're backed up a bit in terms of our current reliable sourcing policy. This needs to be updated with more reliable sources that aren't blogs, or put together in a way that is well sourced if we ever update the policy.

Contents

[edit] Others

[edit] Bro

Bro refers to a fashion style which is most popular in the Southwestern United States. Categorized by both the fashion style (mesh caps, spiked hair, and tattoos) and similar interests (vehicle customization, rap music and hardcore music), the term was created by the subculture, most likely due to the word being a common way to greet one another.

The bro subculture is mostly caucasian, although some Latino people identify with it. Few black people consider themselves "bros" in this context, often due to a nativist feature prevalant in much of the subculture.

[edit] References

  • Jeremy Iversen, High School Confidential. New York, Atria Books, 2006.
  • Orange County Weekly: "Trendzilla: The Bro." Vickie Change, 21 September 2006. URL accessed 13 January 2007.

[edit] Prairie Muffins

Prairie Muffins is a term used by some conservative evangelical Christians in the United States to refer to married women who choose to pursue what they hold as the biblical role of women as quiet homemakers who protect the innocence of their children. The idea is taken from the New Testament passage in Titus 2:4-5:

Admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. NKJV

The origin of the term stems from an incident when R.C. Sproul, Jr., in a good-natured, joking, and in-passing manner, referred to his wife as a "Prairie Muffin." The term is proudly worn by those who self-define as such, although people who see the term and its lifestyle as form of patriarchy may use it as a pejorative. The husbands of those who self-define as Prairie Muffins sometimes refer to themselves as "Prairie Dawgs". Prairie Muffin women are likely to be Quiverfull, homeschoolers, and to live in a rural area.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

[edit] External Links

[edit] Gregory Kohs

Gregory Kohs is a market researcher in Media, Pennsylvania. Gregory operates the Inside Market Research and MyWikiBiz.com web sites.

[edit] MyWikiBiz.com

In 2006-7, Kohs launched MyWikiBiz.com, a service that offered to write Wikipedia entries for businesses for $49 to $99. A few days after he put out a press release in 2006-08-04, MyWikiBiz's account on Wikipedia was blocked.[1]

Over the the next few weeks, Kohs claimed to get about 10 clients into Wikipedia.[1]


[edit] References

^ a b Bergstein, Brian. "Idea of Paid Entries Roils Wikipedia", The Washington Post / Associated Press, 2007-01-24.

[edit] Further reading

Read, Brock. "Wikipedia Blocks a Pay-for-Play Scheme", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2007-01-24. Bergstein, Brian. "Microsoft Offers Cash for Wikipedia Edit", The Washington Post / Associated Press, 2007-01-24. Mathias Peer. "Wikipedia-Artikel, die man kaufen kann", Die Welt, 2006-08-24. (in German) Ruth P. Stevens. "Web Watch 2.0", Direct magazine, Prism Business Media Inc., 2006-12-02. Bernd Graff. "Wikipedia und ungewollte Artikel von Werbern "Schmutzige Spielchen"", sueddeutsche.de, Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH, 2007-01-26. (in German) "Empresa cobrava por verbetes na Wikipedia", G1.com.br, Globo.com, 2006-01-25. (in Portuguese)

[edit] Statement by badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

According to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, a guideline "is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus." In late December 2006, W.marsh (talk · contribs) (who's involvement in this conflict ends here, and has no dog in this fight) made a change to Wikipedia:Notability (music) ([1]) and WP:BIO ([2]). This went unnoticed by me and without comment by any parties involved at the talk pages of the individual guidelines or at Wikipedia:Notability, which these edits allegedly stemmed from. On 24 January, Dragonfiend (talk · contribs) (who also has no dog in this fight) made a similar change to Wikipedia:Notability (web) to match the two that were changed in December. ([3]). Noting the lack of consensus or discussion regarding these changes, which appeared to me to be a fundamental change to our long-standing notability guidelines, I reverted at WP:BIO ([4]) and WP:MUSIC ([5]), while an unrelated person made the reversion at WP:WEB ([6]). At this point, I started/joined in on conversations at the talk pages of all three guidelines in question. (Long conversation, so instead of diffs for now, see WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC. Please use these links as talk page evidence in the coming sections). After taking some time to think about it a little more following comments from someone I respect and trust, JzG (talk · contribs), I reverted back again. And then the problems began.

Over the course of over two weeks, beginning on 29 January, Radiant! (talk · contribs) began a large-scale revert war with me on the pages ([7] [8] [9] [10] [11]), sometimes with discussion at the talk pages, sometimes not. Upon realizing this situation, I decided to place a disputed section tag in the areas while attempting to get a grasp on the consensus at the talk pages ([12] (I initially used the wrong tag at WP:BIO) [13] [14]). These were also removed by Radiant!, typically with little (WP:BIO, WP:WEB) or no (WP:MUSIC) discussion over a multiple-day period. ([15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Note some of the edit summaries, where the discussion Radiant! was not part of was ignored, and many of my edits were considered "nonsense" or dismissed as "WP:IDONTLIKEIT").

At all times, I have tried to begin/continue a discussion at the talk page. Rarely was that reciprocated by Radiant!, the chief edit warrior against me in this conflict. I have not been a saint by any means - I did my share of edit warring, and occasionally made a comment or two that could be considered uncivil ([23]), but I feel I was protecting consensus, a guiding principle. Contrasted with Radiant!'s activities at other project pages, such as WP:CREEP's history, which resulted in page protection after he promoted an essay to a guideline without consensus, Wikipedia:Overcategorization, which eventually gained tangible consensus, but not without my pushing the issue on the talk page, and Wikipedia:Multiposting, now a redirect [24], which was promoted to guideline with no discussion, consensus, or demonstration of current practice. ([25] [26]).

Per the essay at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, I believe Radiant!'s activity on the pages in question meet this standard. Furthermore, his activity fits the description at Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing as well, as he has "edit[ed] an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors." He has also "resist[ed] moderation" (Community-enforced arbitration proposal; RfM; MedCab) and his activity felt like a "[c]ampaign to drive away productive contributors" (me) with his continued behavior, as I nearly left the project last week due to this conflict. Again, I have hardly been a saint in this ordeal, but I have been trying to do things properly in an attempt to figure out if said changes had any consensus or bearing, and, essentially, one person has stood in the way. I believe my comments about Radiant! being a tendentuous and/or disruptive editor in this ordeal has merit based on the evidence, but I want a resolution to this somehow, and this is all I can figure out at this point.

As an addendum to this following a comment below, it is my belief that this is not a content dispute as much as a dispute regarding how policies and guidelines are reached, consistent with the principles put across in past cases regarding consensus, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability , Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics, and perhaps ownership. I've been involved in more than enough content disputes over the years to understand when it evolves past that, and I believe this has.

[edit] Darvon cocktail

The Darvon cocktail is a mixture of drugs used to commit suicide, with the intent to cause death as painlessly as possible. Its main ingredients are:

  • Dextropropoxyphene Hydrochloride (Darvon, Deprancol), to suppress breathing)
  • phenobarbital (to cause unconsciousness)
  • midazolam (to induce sleep)
  • Metoclopramide (to counter vomiting).

The midazolam may be substituted with another potent benzodiazepine such as alprazolam (Xanax), or both may be used. The midazolam-alprazolam combination may be substituted for a combination of lorazepam and zopiclone. Sometimes Metoclopramide is replaced by Prochlorperazine.

The cocktail is unpleasant to the taste and will not work unless mixed in correct quantities, not least because of the risk of vomiting.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29&diff=prev&oldid=104322051

[edit] Statement by Badlydrawnjeff

On 4 May, Qian Zhijun, an article about a Chinese person who became famous for the web meme his appearance inspired and he himself cultivated, was nominated for deletion.[27] After the requisite five day period, the discussion was closed as delete by Daniel (talk · contribs) (known at the time by his sig as Daniel Bryant, has changed his name in the period since),[28] but later re-opened by Bryant following an appeal.[29] Drini (talk · contribs) closed the discussion again not too long after as delete, citing that the meme might be notable, but the kid isn't.[30] This was appealed at deletion review on 13 May, and eventually overturned by Xoloz (talk · contribs) on the grounds that the subject met all the relevant policies (having multiple reliable sources, the cornerstone of inclusion - one user put the rate of sourcing at 1.7 refs/sentence[31]), and relisted the article on AfD.[32] This discussion was quickly responded to by a number of people before being closed by thebainer (talk · contribs) less than an hour after the relisting.[33] I then nominated it for deletion review[34] following an appeal to thebainer[35] which was declined. This is where the issues began, over the course of around 24 hours:

The discussion spilled over to a number of project pages, talk pages, and userpages. It's emblematic of the general situation the project is currently encountering regarding the actual role of deletion review, the ability of administrators to use their abilities to shut down useful discussion, and the inability to have a consistent, clear appeals process, without even getting into the specifics of user conduct, which is highlighted by the numerous case of incivility and lack of good faith toward contributors on both sides of the debate, as evidenced by commentary below mine.

There are many things that ArbCom can (and should) look at here - the role of deletion review, the ability for administrators to accurately interpret discussions, whether a group of editors can choose to willfully ignore the policies laid out by a wider consensus by the greater community, the application of WP:BLP in regards to subjects who participate in their own fame, and the closing of discussions early, perhaps relevant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. This is about behavior, about process, about mechanisms, and about content, no matter what anyone else would like to frame it as.

The list of people above are simply people who were involved in the closing/unclosing/deleting/undeleting. I'd imagine ArbCom can sort that out during the proceedings, but at no point and I saying some of the involved parties are more "guilty" than others.

I urge ArbCom to accept this case. This sort of nonsense has to stop - the administrators are not reading the consensus properly, and us regular users are simply stuck in constant limbo because of this.