This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bdj. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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. Ralbot06:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Darvon cocktail
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm dismayed that this article has been deleted. I feel that there is no good reason not to document its existence on Wikipedia. Is there any way to get this article reinstated? 18.51.1.25015:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Jeff I was wondering if you could help us here. HoneyBee and Myself have some difficulties with a new user Joe Dick. He has removed a large amount of content from the Methos and Duncan MacLeod articles and each time the content is reverted back he claims vandalism on our parts and refuses to discuss his reasons on the talk pages. Not only that he has been reverting the warnings placed on his talk page leaving a message on our talk page stating Please do not post any further invalid warnings to my talk page, or I will report you. Please can you help resolve this as he will not listen to any regular users, Thanks -- UKPhoenix7922:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not quite correct. I have definitely been willing to discuss my reasons on the talk pages. I have stated them clearly. Also, I am free to remove warnings from my talk page when they are not from administrators and not legitimate. I have been accused of vandalism (my changes were not; they were in good faith), but I cannot accuse them of the same? Not even when they blindly revert and not willing to discuss things before doing a revert? (They accuse me of not being willing to discuss. Look at the evidence.) I would listen to regular non-admin users if they were to behave rationally. I hope, Jeff, that you will in fact consider both sides rather than just blindly siding with a friend. I can call in admins too, if I have to, and it could become more serious. That is not a threat, and I do not want to have to do it, but I would like a fair shake. P.S. I am very familiar with the various permutations of Highlander, and if it helps the producers and several of the writers have stated that the novels and animated series are not canon. While I do not have any copies of interviews on hand, I'm sure they could be found through a simple search. Joe Dick22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll see what I can do here - Joe, can you explain why you keep removing the information? I'm looking at the page history, and it appears to an outsider as somewhat haphazard and bizarre. Could you explain (or re-explain) in plain terms why? --badlydrawnjefftalk22:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well first of all I am not going to revert it anymore, since that seems pointless now, and probably always was. The reason I deleted the information was because it is from The Methos Chronicles, a non-canon Highlander spinoff. The Highlander producers have stated in interviews that the spinoff novels and animated series are not canon. If the information I deleted must be included, it should be stated that it is from an animated spinoff. My concern was only that a Highlander newbie might believe the information was revealed on the live-action, canon show Highlander: The Series. I did state this on the Methos talk page, but UKPhoenix79 keeps accusing me of being unwilling to do this. If I haven't explained myself clearly enough, let me know and I will try again. Joe Dick22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Look I stated earlier your edits indeed might be 100% correct and might be what the pages ends up becoming but two users have been trying to get you to talk and each time we revert the page to what it was before you immediately revert the articles and then claim that it was vandalism. That does not help. We have also asked you to produce some sources to back up your claims and you have ignored those requests and have not even made any comments as such. Then when we put warnings on your user page, something that since there are a finite amount of admins out there people use all the time to help regulate and keep wikipedia working you threaten these users with impropriety and state that you will report them? If you want to remove the warnings later when this has past there is no problem with that, but during an ongoing debate shows bad faith especially when threating other users. This debate would not have even come to the place it is right now if you would have been willing to work with your other editors and not been so aggressive about it. -- UKPhoenix7922:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I think part of the problem is that these different posts are being read out of order. I have said on other talk pages that I will attempt to produce sources. I admit that I should not have been so hasty to revert, but then I was being accused of vandalism, and to my mind it seemed that for you and others to revert my changes without any real discussion seemed just as bad. I will try to find what proof I can to support my claims. It is definitely not true, though, that I have been unwilling to discuss things or have not stated my reasons - I have. All that's left now is to find proof if I can. As I said on some talk page recently, I did not think to save the interviews where I originally read this stuff. If I can't find anything then I will have to admit defeat. I would not have made the claims I have without at least thinking that I'm right. You and HoneyBee seemed to dismiss out of hand my assertions about canonicity. That doesn't seem right either. Joe Dick22:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that things have calmed down. I think that most of the confusion comes from inexperience with wikipedia and not knowing how things are done here. I'm sure that In the end Joe Dick will become an asset to wikipedia working with other users to help improve articles. Thanks for the help Jeff :-) -- UKPhoenix7923:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Sorry I missed that, I think the opposers were mostly missing the point. Next time we will have to summon the cabal. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, if I'd seen it in time, I would've !voted for you (not to be confused with "not voting" for you, or not !voting, which is what actually happened...). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Starting fires
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Well, minor changes (but I hope improvement) to IAR, an outstanding request or two to Jimbo Wales for his Final Word on just what the hell he meant by the edit to IAR on 18 April 2006, some completely unconsensus-formed, no-action taken discussions on WT:DRV, WT:IAR, etc. and some interesting conversations you and I have both had with the "other side" later, where do I go from here? I'm thinking RfCs if I see more totally egregious decision-making on DRV, possibly to make the point that the DRV project page should be changed to reflect reality, or that admins should change behavior to reflect policy (community-choice). Maybe alternately other VPR entries regarding that sad state of affairs? Any ideas? And, in case it's not abundantly clear, I'd rather folks respect me for being a terrier/bulldog with hopefully consistent ethics than actually like me. --MalcolmGinTalk / Conts16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on some stuff on the side. It's ended up being a busy week for me, so I haven't been able to focus my energies the way I'd like, but I haven't forgotten. Hang tight - I'll keep you posted. --badlydrawnjefftalk17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A reboot is sorely necessary, but I'm not sure how at this point without the people ruining it coming along and replacing it with something worse. --badlydrawnjefftalk17:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You'd probably be banned for WP:POINT, anyway. Or put on the rack and tortured until you gave up our names as a part of some secret anti-Wikipedia cabal. Bastards. Rockstar (T/C) 19:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
You haven't gotten under my skin, Bdjeff; you're just expressing some rather extreme (and in my view, not well thought out) positions on this issue. If you have an issue with trusting admins to use their tools, this policy in particular is not the place on which to express them. Jayjg (talk)21:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What extreme views? It's an extreme view to not want subjects of articles to dictate content? From the looks of the discussion, it doesn't seem as much. This has nothing to do with administrative power, actually, and that assumption is just as unfounded as my alleged "extreme views" on this particular issue. --badlydrawnjefftalk21:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, it's a bit much of you to tell anyone to assume good faith. The only encounter I've had with you (that I recall) was when I speedied a page you wanted to keep; the deletion was upheld at deletion review, and the next thing I know I'm getting posts from you on my talk page discussing my "agenda," and how dare I, and you were going to fix me, or words to that effect. Bearing in mind that I'm someone who takes very little do with deletion issues, and don't know enough about them to have an "agenda." Assumptions of good faith have to work both ways. If you don't like the bad faith, don't be so fast to dish it out. SlimVirgin(talk)21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Then you must have misunderstood my post about your improper deletion, especially since you think I was going to "fix you," wherever the hell that comes from - I brought it to DRV and I complained that you speedied an article because you decided it was "dangerous," a patently absurd reason. Certainly, I said nothing improper. Now, if I've given you a reason to so curtly dismiss me the way you did at BLP, I'd love to hear about it, but I'm certainly not going to stand for it if there's no good reason. --badlydrawnjefftalk21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
MySpace Events
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
so what you stating is that it's ok that he wrote his own article ? that Cory Williams created his own article that can fly ? when did TOS change ? i am confused TomSkillingJr.
While we frown upon autobiographies, it's not a reason to delete one if the subject meets our standards for inclusion, which are (for this guy) WP:BIO and WP:WEB. If you think the article is dishonest, or biased, then by all means work to fix it. --badlydrawnjefftalk23:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
i am unclear how it is worth anyone's time to fix up an article about a youtuber and openly admits to cheating the subscription and viewing service for money. what's there to fix up exactly ? i've been in the paper, i've been on tv. does that mean i deserve an article on wikipedia. in fact, i upload on youtube as well. regardless, thank you for explaining all of this. maybe i'll write an article about my life and resume --[User:TomSkillingJr.|TomSkillingJr.]]
Like I said, we don't invite autobiographies, but our content is governed by what's verifiable, and what meets our standards. If you meet those, you could have an article. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please vote your opinion at articles for deletion, Jeff? Before you do so, you might want to take a look at this: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review&oldid=125702519 Scroll to "Cory Williams" at the very bottom. Pay attention to the times each user posted. Do you find it at all suspicious that three of the most vocal users against Williams's having an article post within a few minutes of each other, and that all three make the same mistake of voicing their calls for deletion in the wrong place? This would partly make sense if the initiator provided a link here, but he didn't. User:TomSkillingJr. claimed he put the article up for deletion; but to see what he was talking about, I needed to look up his user contributions.Ichormosquito05:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ichormosquito, you told me you're friends with Cory Williams Mr. Safety. Consider ethics and regarding TOS on bias, and neutrality on the article. I am just curious, do you work for direct tv The Fizz ? It's safe to assume you do right ? TomSkillingJr.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed some of your comments regarding WP:IAR and wonder if you would give an opinion on a disagreement now taking place on Talk:Kundalini where my attempts to get compliance with WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability are being rebuffed by WP:IAR. I have never faced a situation where people just ignore WP:RS by citing WP:IAR. Can you help give additional opinion on this there? Buddhipriya02:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like other people jumped in. It's, of course, a perfectly valid application on IAR, which is the problem with it. It's okay, you'll win out eventually. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Jeff, you know you can't do that! If you want to write a new article fine, indeed great. But we don't allow the copyvio to remain in the history. You need to write your new article on a subpage - and wait till the copyright issue is resolved before moving it to the deleted copyvio. Messy, yes. but that's policy. The alternative is that I cut the Gordian knot and delete the current article right now, and let you and other write a new one.--Docg19:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even bother checking the history with all the edit conflicts. I'll c/p it into my userspace for now, I figured someone would let me know if I screwed it all up. --badlydrawnjefftalk19:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem with that. d:-) No, I know copyvio's a Big Deal, I wouldn't have touched it if I noticed the tag. At least it got rewritten... --badlydrawnjefftalk19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems the copyright issue has now been resolved. The other website now has a GNU release. So, all yours.--Docg22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You really need to stop making edits like this one. My contract in blood with liberal requires me to disagree with you at all times. How am I supposed to oppose everything you say when you say sensible things? You're making far too much sense these days. Please stop! Guettarda20:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And you may tell yourself - this is not my beautiful house! Hey, we're allowed to agree once a month, and we haven't cashed in our chips lately, so... --badlydrawnjefftalk20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jeff,
I just noticed that you contested the prod I placed on The Weight-Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You To Know About with an edit summary of 'definitely a notable book, removing prod'. Since the article is entirely unsourced and makes no claim whatsoever to establish notability except 'it's advertised on TV', could you please explain why the book is notable? There are plenty of nutrition/weight loss-related books which seem to be just as equally noteworthy as this one. Most of them are controversial as well. In fact, that's true of even most scientific studies. Thanks. -- Seed 2.022:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
hey jeff, about the fizz article. what is acceptable in regards to neutrality and sources of information ? it's a television show, and the article reads like an advertisement rather than a factual piece of substance. to myself and others, it looks like the FIZZ want alot of attention or bigger paychecks for their company from creating articles about their show. wouldnt it make more sense to take basic information from the article and put it with the 101 article. i read you don't think that way and disagree. which is understandable. however, i hope the article is cleaned up because right now its an advert stub. TomSkillingJr.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As you are probably aware, the Stoop!d Monkey page was the subject of an AfD and the result was, of course, "Keep". Currently, the logos are a point of contention with myself saying that they were part of the "Keep", while User:Calton saying they were to be dropped and the article was to remain.
I asked the admin who closed the AfD his opinion and he replied, "I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos". There wasn't a decision given on the logos and in the AfD only 3 users said the logos should go, only 1 said keep the article, lose the logos.
I am not sure how to handle this, but since the admin who closed the AfD made no decision and the AfD wasn't about the logos in the first place (and the majority said to keep the logos if you want to be picky about it, as far as I can tell).
This wasn't an issue from April 16th (immediately after the AfD) to May 3rd when User:Calton realized that I was blocked for 48hours (not related to this) and I couldn't revert his changes. User:Calton had no interest and made no changes on the page itself or the talk page during that time. So, to me, his initial revert on May 3rd was done because of my block.
I have asked two admins (in case one is offline) to revert his changes and put a block on the page until this can be worked out. I am also asking you, since you contributed to the AfD, what your opinion is on just the logos themselves. I appericate you input one way or the other. Thanks...SVRTVDude(VT)
I assume you mean the list of logos? I'll be honest - I'm not sure how useful those are as they were written, but my opinion at the AfD had nothing to do with them. --badlydrawnjefftalk04:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your message; I hadn't known that songs and singles weren't included; CSD doesn't make that explicit, at least. What is the reason? (I hope it isn't just the "we want an article on every single ever released" lobby). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Mainly because we don't have any sort of major consensus on which songs should be included, and that they're typically sub-articles of the larger artist articles. It's still too contentious. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
'Ello ... FYI, I had a similar edit conflict on Paula Stone last night ... I think that my frustration over one of these may have exacerbated my response to the other, so I apologize if I came across as rude. —72.75.73.15814:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
No prob, it's rare to see an anon know what they're doing as well as you (although you hint to maybe being someone who's "on Wikibreak", we both know how that goes. Keep on keeping on. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I tried that thing myself and I am still waiting... Anyway if I might draw your attention to this book-stub, it got a prod tag after you edited it. For sources there is apparently a New York Times review but I can't seem to view it or a copy of it anywhere. I figured being in a library maybe you'd have back issues or a site pass or something. And a copy of the book too, who knows. — CharlotteWebb00:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll do some hunting this week - being a Houghton Mifflin title, I don't think there'll be any lack of reviews, especially if the NYT got ahold of it. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you still not forgotten?
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
what would be your advice for nom The FIZZ article. the basic argument is
1. clean-up
2. bias , neutrality
3. written like advertisement for company and channel (as well as certain users IE: Mr. Safety, Digitilsoul)
i have other arguments. however, i wanted to approach this issue on a civil level. this article reminds me of the situation with other so-called "viral clip" marketing campaigns. I am aware the "show" is notable because its on sat. tv - however, it needs serious help and no one other than the main author has contributed much. thanks. TomSkillingJr.
Well, to be honest, I don't think the article has any of those problems. I think it needs some expansion and perhaps fewer external jumps, but I'm not as down on it as you are. --badlydrawnjefftalk17:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Ralbot05:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
FAC
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Jeff,
Do you have any links pointing to your run-in with Friday ? He appears to have abused/offended a great many people. StuRat02:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If you go through our recent talk archives, you'll get a taste. He also has a vast misunderstanding of speedy deletion policy, which is troubling, but I don't think it's worth acting upon yet or I would have already. --badlydrawnjefftalk02:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I definitely have some comments, but I'm not in a place right this moment to comment. If I don't do so tonight, leave me an angry message about it. --badlydrawnjefftalk19:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I've nominated Team Spygear, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Team Spygear satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Spygear and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Team Spygear during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — iridescenti(talk to me!)20:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm starting to come back from my work imposed break. I won't be fully back until we file our form 10Q for Q1 2007, which was due today, but we won't make that deadline. Has something happened at DRV while I've been on break? Please email me, as I'd just as soon see your comments without other's responses. GRBerry22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Done and done. You have an AOL addy, right? I may have some issues responding, my webhost hates AOL, but we'll make it work. --badlydrawnjefftalk22:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion patrolling
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for patrolling speedy deletions... as noted on your RFA, it's something that's widely seen as helpful. I just have one request... if you find a page that should be kept, could you do the minimal cleanup that new-page patrollers would do if they decided the page should be kept? The most obvious thing to check for is lack of a category (if you don't have time to find the proper one, it would be appreciated if you could tag it with {{uncat}}).
Also, regarding this, I understand that you would like A7 to not be applied to anything other than what it strictly says (eg. bands okay, albums no), and I generally view that as one acceptable interpretation of A7. However, the band page didn't exist, and therefore there was no assertion anywhere (either on the band page or on the album page) of importance for the band. Put another way, do you really believe there's a meaningful difference between someone posting "X Band is a band from Canada that's released one album, Y Album." as X Band, and instead posting that sentence as Y Album? Do you really believe the first case can be speedied but the second can't, just because its title is different? (that's just the policy question... in this case, the album also got 0ghits, and the same author had already self-blanked the band page (resulting in its deletion before you ran across the album page), so hopefully it's not remotely a controversial deletion) --Interiot09:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. To be fair, I did intend to mention the album page to the author and got distracted by something else, but the two must be handled differently. But yes, they should and must be handled differently - it's widely the intent of the speedy policy to be handled strictly, and too many people are attempting to move the bar without discussing it. You were wrong to speedy that, mergism is hardly a policy, and you're really not being helpful with what you did gaming the policy like you did. I would very much appreciate you not doing so in the future, thanks. --badlydrawnjefftalk11:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The intent was not at all to game the system at all. No, mergism isn't policy, but thinking with my non-admin hat on, that's one of the classic cases where a page obviously needs to be moved to the more general one... sub-stub song article with a redlink album: move it; sub-stub album article with a redlink band: move it; sub-stub book article with a redlink author: move it. It had to be moved either way. I guess I could have moved it and left it as a proded band page, and updated the prod to note there were 0ghits and that the band page had already been speedied once... but the chances that someone else would come along and speedy it were pretty high.
Why should the exact same content be treated differently, based on what title it's posted as? --Interiot20:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Because community consensus is that we don't speedy those things. Attempts have been made and rejected to include those, and we should abide by that. I'm not in agreement with you, but that's as an editorial thing, not as an administrative one. --badlydrawnjefftalk20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
User Page Deleted
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My user page was deleted by someone named Radiant. What can I do to recover its content? Can I repost the material? And what can I do to keep from having my page deleted again? Thanks for your advice on this. Matrixism13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion
Hi BDJ,
I feel that some of your recent comments have grown progressively more and more combative. It seems to me as if you're approaching Wikipedia as a fight to be won instead of a... well, whatever it's supposed to be. Characterizing folks as abusive, calling people dishonest for disagreeing with you... these do much to hurt the project when I know that your interests are the polar opposite. Is there any way I can ask you to step back for a second before hitting save to see if there's any way your posts can be reworded to prevent strife? I know that it's not a one sided thing, there are plenty of folks out there that are just dicks, but if you can take the high road, it'll boost your credibility and put the burden on them to improve.
Best regards,
CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you really understand my intentions if your comment up there was designed to actually derive them. If you believe the hype that I'm calling people dishonest because they disagree with me, then how can I possibly take such a comment seriously. If you want to be helpful, help fix the problem, don't preach to me. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Under normal circumstances, I'd merely remove this as yet another unhelpful comment. But I'm feeling generous today - yes, hype. No one can make an honest assessment that the deletion was proper. No one has, and no one will, because they can't. You'll keep making your snide comments, though, that's for sure. So, as I said elsewhere, shit or get off the pot. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm all set, you're the one who needs to adjust their activity. Are you going to be part of the problem or the solution, Friday? --badlydrawnjefftalk15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make remarks directed toward individual editors regarding bodily functions considered generally impolite. Best wishes, Xoloz15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's true, I started that. Jeff, tell you what: You put down your rock, I'll put down my sword, and we'll try to kill each other like civilized people, deal? Friday(talk)15:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You obviously see me as part of the problem (I believe you've said so a time or two) and I think what you're really saying here is "Do what I want instead of what you want, or else I'm defining you as part of the problem". So what kind of choice does this really give me? If you were looking for a resolution instead of looking for a fight, I can't see why you would frame things in such a divisive way. Friday(talk)23:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Benchley
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hi,
I appreciated your points -- that's why I userfied it myself to clean. However, the consensus view was that further debate is unnecessary on this topic at this time... and I appreciate that view also. While the article had sources, there were a significant number of unsourced contentions crucial to its content. Thus, I don't think the view that G4 applies is entirely nuts. The goal is to get a good article here. We'll work on it. Best wishes, Xoloz15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If one can properly speedly delete the content, then the procedural issues of whether AfD process was respected vanish. That's procedural-speak for the point repeatedly being made by your adversaries on this question. Best wishes, Xoloz15:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That's your point, but it was not the consensus view. And, by the way, both you and Friday are welcome to tell anybody to "poop or get off the pot" -- that's adorable! :) Best wishes, Xoloz15:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The consensus view is that, in this case, religions/religious movements do not meet speedy deletion criteria. Certainly, a group of editors and administrators cannot overturn a consensus of policy, right? --badlydrawnjefftalk15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus in an individual forum exists to apply general policy to specific cases. Although this point wasn't specifically touched on in the DRV, implicit in its choice is the notion that "Matrixism" hasn't demonstrated itself to be a religion yet (as opposed to the satirical/parodic musings of a very small group.) Best wishes, Xoloz17:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I was cross about how whether the article had been correctly handled through the deletion process (it had not) was ignored, and the whole "well, I think it's silly" arguments were even considered acceptable. Bah. I'm going to make that article awesomer and awesomer until they can't delete it. Neil (►) 09:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
New article input
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have full respect for article creators such as yourself and wondering if you can look at my most recent creation, the Hungarian Gold Train for any kind of input or edits. Thanks! --Oakshade17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, great article! I'd make sure I get a reference or something up at the top paragraph, and get a copyeditor in on it to clean up some prose stuff. I like it! --badlydrawnjefftalk17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
New people not grokking Ignore All Rules (and a lot of other stuff besides)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yes, these are acculturation issues, which in turn are caused by scaling issues. I have seen precious few people actually working on ways to deal with acculturation. This is also how usenet, slashdot, and kuro5hin eventually faded away. I'm not sure I have the time myself, since I'm sort of trying to prevent acculturation issues wash away basic concepts about how wikis work.
I don't think it's a good idea to throw out what little wisdom we have accumulated over the past 6 years. Instead, it might be better to try to find ways to educate new people, and let them learn from our past mistakes.
Would you have any ideas on how to approach that? I think our current system is woefully inadequate. :-/ --Kim Bruning00:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't really think of an answer that's likely to not get your eyes a-rolling, but I think it's not an issue of the new people grokking IAR (I love Heinlein, too), but the older people not grokking it. The Sanger quote provided earlier really opened my eyes to the true problem here. --badlydrawnjefftalk22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Matt Young
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 12 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matt Young, 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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Jeff, hi.
I wonder if I could ask you a favor? On FCYTravis' page, I noticed you tend to remove the whitespace I've been inserting between top level bullet points. I find the edit box very hard to use without that; is there any way you could please leave it in? I'd appreciate that very much. -GTBacchus(talk)22:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Am I a freak? It always seemed to me that the bomb question is not really best answered in the context in which it's framed. To me, the question is, "How much would it suck to be put in a position where you obviously have to defy your own morals and sense of hypcrisy and act in a pragmatic way that will psychologically damage you for the rest of your life?", and the answer is, "A lot, but I'd torture the poor bastard anyway, and then go to therapy." --MalcolmGinTalk / Conts00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Funny, I wanted to move that stuff down to the bottom too, but thought it might be too radical of a first step. Thanks! Kevin --Kevin Murray00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Subpage deletion
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Sorry if I deleted some good conversations between you and GTBacchus, but it's clear to me that it's not going to do either me or you any good simply going back and forth as we were. We just fundamentally disagree over the purpose and policy of this project and we'll have to leave it at that. If you'd like me to retrieve any of your discussions from the deleted page, let me know. FCYTravis05:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, would you be interested in continuing any of the discussions we were having? I can restore them to whatever location you deem suitable, and it seems FCYTravis would also be willing to help with that, if I'm offline. I'd be willing to keep some of that going, but if you'd prefer not to, I'll certainly respect that. -GTBacchus(talk)16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever works for you, honestly. If you saw a few that you were really feeling good about, feel free to restore them and move them to the talk page on mine. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll do that. I think we've got some potential for progress here, if we can stay focused on the problems at DRV. You've got your ideas of what those problems are, and I've got mine, and I think we've got enough overlap between us to at least have a good conversation. -GTBacchus(talk)02:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I know we may be several layers away from that in the DRV/IAR/policy/process discussion, but I just wanted to let you know that should it get that far, I'm fine with going that far and participating in arbitration if required. --MalcolmGinTalk / Conts18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I've already done some inquiries in the event nothing budges in either direction (i.e., for or against where my personal preferences lie), and it'll certainly be the next step. I'll keep you in the loop. --badlydrawnjefftalk19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Shadow children series
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Regardless of where our feelings lie in the extreme cases, as I've noted I'm fully aware of the fact that too many good or potentially-workable articles get speedied, and I think we can find common ground there. FCYTravis20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
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. Ralbot08:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Barracuda (Fergie song).
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you mentioned this song on User talk: Mel Etitis. I thought you might like to know that it's original creator, FergieFan101, is now indefinitely blocked for being disruptive by creating articles about music singles and not sourcing any of the pages. FergieFan101 was initially blocked by ShadowHalo for creating unsourced pages, and was the indefinitely blocked by Nishkid64 for doing the same thing (see the block log for more info). "Barracuda" was just one of the many fake and/or unsourced articles that FergieFan101 created. Just so you know. Acalamari17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
To avoid stepping on any toes, more info to back up your comment regarding the undelete of Fu Jow Pai:
The original article (added by a 3rd party) was copyvio. Another person (3rd party) correctly flagged it as copyvio and we created an alternative talk/temp page to resolve, per the copyvio instructions. Deleting admin deleted without moving over the talk/temp page for peer review. I restarted the page with the talk/temp content and informed the admin, who promptly deleted it. When I emailed the admin and asked him to undelete and provide constructive edits, the admin added it to the block article list.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fujowpai (talk • contribs)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Badlydrawnjeff. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Comedy ssu2.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Badlydrawnjeff/Myspace Events. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for taking I Lost On Jeopardy to Deletion Review. It certainly seems that the view of the speedying admin is not a view shared by the majority of Wikipedians that are currently responding to the AfD. Andy Saunders00:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
You're obviously angered about this. I'm not going to respond more except to say that if you have issue with this, you should take it up with the Wikimedia Foundation. Even if you convinced me you're absolutely 100% correct, it will change nothing. Talking to the foundation has a chance of making the changes happen that you want to see. --Durin17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really angry about the situation - our asinine fair use policy is what it is. I am bothered by people willing to defend haphazard editing, though. It's a simple question - are we here to build a good encyclopedia or cut off our noses in an attempt to do something we don't even have to do because we're paranoid? --badlydrawnjefftalk18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
We disagree on whether this is paranoia of bad practice. It's obvious discussion on this is not achieving any middle ground. As I recommended, I think you should take this up with the foundation. --Durin18:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Can I make a suggestion then? I mean this in good spirit, so please take it that way. If the policies aren't going to change, and people aren't willing to make attempts to make that change, isn't fighting it like screaming at the wall? Ineffectual, isn't it? --Durin18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really, no. If you can educate people as to how asinine it is as opposed to watching people fall in line because "Jimbo/The Foundation" say so, it's undoubtedly better. Dissent is never ineffectual. --badlydrawnjefftalk18:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised you're seeing this as a Foundation issue, though. The Foundation hasn't forbidden fair use, really. The Foundation isn't forcing anyone to not review problematic images. --badlydrawnjefftalk18:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of the Foundation's licensing policy. That doesn't mean that how we choose to handle it is somehow handed down by them. The Foundation is not saying "Don't bother examining the iamges, just tag them." --badlydrawnjefftalk19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale blitz !
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I totally agree with your opinions on the fair use thread. I am two minutes from sticking Wikipedia right where the sun doesn't shine ! I have no interest in the 'geeky' side of wikipedia, I write what I know about. I agree if somene feels they are making use of their time worrying about images like sports logos etc then putting the rationales right would be a far better way of doing that. One word of advise, never argue with stupid people. They just drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience. Best wishes. Hammer198018:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Meh, don't get that frustrated over it. I'm optimistic that, someday, the Foundation will wake up. Elections are in a few months... --badlydrawnjefftalk18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"Unfortunately" the people who vote in wiki elections are likely the same people who want this policy :) Whilst the average reader is probably only interested in getting the best encyclopedia we can make, and that they don't have to pay for it, the average reader probably isn't a voter. Personally I commend your stand and enjoy a good natured dig at our "godking" system as much as the next guy, but I think the fair use images policy is a battle which has already been lost. I'm quite happy to help implement it, too. I share your concern about how far it might go, though; most worrying to me is album covers, but I think it's a bit silly disallowing promo shots from press kits too. I know we can exert pressure to get these under free licences in the future, but there's not much we can do about the material that's already out there and which nobody was sue us for using because that's what it was intended for. --kingboyk18:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Thecliqueharrison.jpg and others
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Tony Sidaway21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot write justifications for your use of non-free images, because I don't know whether use of those images in those articles is justified or not. I'll wait until you write the justifications and then decide whether they appear to be valid under Wikipedia policy or not. --Tony Sidaway21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you could, you simply choose not to, and probably just to make a point since you know that there's been a discussion elsewhere. I expect nothing less. --badlydrawnjefftalk22:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It's true that I didn't realise that you had uploaded many non-free images without providing a proper rationale or details until I noticed you apparently openly and defiantly defending the practice in a discussion today. This doesn't excuse you from your obligations to provide this information. You say that I could do your work for you, but I cannot. I do not know enough about the works you have uploaded, or where you obtained them from, to write anything about them. I do not know whether their use is justifiable or even legally defensible on Wikipedia. You know how you obtained them and you know more than I do about the works, so it's appropriate to ask you to do the work. --Tony Sidaway23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and many of them came long after this new detail. Of course, you do know that these are entirely legal and permissible, and you could easily figure out without having to badger others, especially to make a point as you're doing so now. I'm fixing the "problems" that I inadvertently created, and we'll be all set. Consider actually being helpful in the future. Thanks. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Book/movie images: no rationale - tagged for CSD I7
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Should you have any questions or concerns, please do feel free to contact me. Thank you very much for your assistance, and I am truly sorry that this is necessary, as I can appreciate the time that you must have spent uploading all those images. I also hope, however, that you understand my rationale behind this.Yours, -NicholasTurnbull | (talk)22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, most of them are quite old. I'm glad you felt your time was better spent tagging them than actually finding rationales. I hope it was good. --badlydrawnjefftalk22:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove administrative warnings from your talk page, nor misrepresent the posts of other editors via redaction of their messages. Should you persist, you may be banned from editing Wikipedia. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)22:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't removed any warnings, I've removed boilerplate deletion notifications. Now, are you going to let me fix the problem or continue pestering me? --badlydrawnjefftalk22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Author?
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, thanks for beginning to fix the fair-use case for your many uploads. I've looked at some of your work, specifically Image:Thehappyhockyfamily.jpg, and I notice that you don't identify the author of the work (the copyright holder of the image, that is) or the source from which you obtained it. Did the author of the book produce the illustration, or was an illustration by another person provided? If so, who was this? Did you scan this image yourself, or did you obtain it from a website or other source?
I'd appreciate it if you could provide this information for this and any other images you have uploaded, to which you do not possess distribution rights. --Tony Sidaway23:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, could you please identify, on the image page, the author of the cover image depicted, and the source from which you obtained it? These facts are not available on the image page. I don't know what "FAR" means, could you explain that? --Tony Sidaway00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If you can't understand the terminology, that's not my problem. Thanks. If you have information you can provide, please do so. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied with this response, so I've tagged this particular image for deletion because you have not identified the source and author adequately. --Tony Sidaway00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You say in a recent edit that the source is the copyright holder? Who holds the copyright of the image? Did the copyright holder send it to you directly, or did you copy it from a website, or scan the image? Did you photograph it from a computer screen, or crop it from a larger image? Just say how you obtained the image and and who owns the copyright for the original cover artwork. --Tony Sidaway01:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No real way of knowing, now is there? The information you need is available, so we're all set here. Go write an encyclopedia, Tony. --badlydrawnjefftalk01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm trying to write an encyclopedia, but your recalcitrant and truculent attitude is making this part of the process rather difficult. In the same edit, you said that the image was "probably" scanned. What does that mean? How did the image come into your possession? Who owns the copyright of the non-free image that you propose that we use on our free encyclopedia? --Tony Sidaway01:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony, are you having a "read-o"? I see text that answers your question from the image page in question: "Fair use in The Happy Hocky Family, taken from the requisite listing at Amazon.com, which was provided to them by the requisite holder of the distribution license:". --MalcolmGinTalk / Conts12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This image also seems to lack any source or copyright holder information. How did you obtain it? I've tagged it for deletion because of the lack of source information. --Tony Sidaway01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
For both of your questions, all the information anyone needs is available. If you feel the need to add more information, go right ahead, but we have all the information necessary. --badlydrawnjefftalk02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
With that set-up...
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
...it would have been a crime not to follow through. I can't even tell which of three or four possible sarcastic remarks it was, but I like it that way! -GTBacchus(talk)03:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Then it'll be going back to DRV, because you've now decided that a) an original closure of no consensus, and b) the reversal of the deletion by Drini aren't enough to indicate that something's gone wrong. --badlydrawnjefftalk14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
As requested
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Fair use in [[]], taken from the requisite listing at Amazon.com, which was provided to them by the requisite holder of the distribution license:
The image is being used for the article about [[]].
It is of a lower resolution than the original, and will not affect the ability to market or profit off of the .
No free images of or representative of the can be found, and does not infringe on the rights of the holders of the copyright, who either produced the image or owns the rights to the item this image illustrates, and is the source for the original said copyrighted image.
The image is used on a variety of websites, thus not making it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is. The image is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the original in any way.
Create User:Badlydrawnjeff/template or similar. Then add it with {{subst:User:Badlydrawnjeff/template}} . Though I do encourage you to also add a reason why the image is necessary to the article in order for it to be a complete rationale. WjBscribe15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
OK - put the text on a personal page "User:Badlydrawnjeff/whatever'. Then to transclude just stick {{User:Badlydrawnjeff/whatever}} or better {{subst:User:Badlydrawnjeff/whatever}}.--Docg
I thought you were a bit hard done by there, but never mind, good to see you got an acceptable outcome. You might want to liase with the folks over at WP:ALBUM about this, as there was discussion on boilerplate rationales for album covers over there. We also need all interested editors to be standing up for fair use album covers. --kingboyk15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Story of my life. I'm still tweaking parts, but the idea was that Template:Fur would eventually get adopted by the album/book Wikiprojects to cover the bases. But hey, what's an extra hoop, right? --badlydrawnjefftalk15:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me (and strangely enough I've seen Guy say pretty much the same thing, don't have a diff on me) that album covers are obviously fair use in articles about those recordings. I don't see why we couldn't just have a boilerplate message in the non-free album cover template... Since we can't, something that could be subst'd and used as the basis for a rationale would be welcome afaic. It could perhaps live in WP:ALBUMS space. Come on over some time and have a chat. --kingboyk18:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hell, even Jimbo has said as much if we can dig out the right statement on it. I've, er, got a bit on my plate currently, but feel free to use anything produced here for a better situation for all involved. --badlydrawnjefftalk19:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Image licensing
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you using the userspace template User:Badlydrawnjeff/fur on a bunch of image descriptions. This doesn't work because all of our reusers are required to mirror the image description pages (for licensing regions), but almost none of them mirror userspace. You should be substing this template so that it doesn't require anything in userspace. Note that it cannot be turned into a templatespace template, because we don't allow individualized licensing/fair use templates on a per-user basis. --Cyde Weys16:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that after I got started, thankfully not too far into the fixes. I'm going to fix them all when I get home tonight and I can open some tabs. Sorry 'bout that. These are the times I wish I knew how to code, lemme tell ya... --badlydrawnjefftalk16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion
What the fuck is going on with this? The kid himself is going for media attention and everyone needs to defend him so badly that they can't pay attention to policy. oy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No shit. I don't even know where the next step is, I'm angry enough where I may actually appeal this one to ArbCom. This isn't some Brian Peppers issue. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Like I said in the DRV, It's more like if brian peppers started up his own website, did newspaper interviews and embraced his internet celebrity status. Worked for Gary Brolsma.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs)
I feel like there would be less objection if the article was about the phenomenon, and named the kid tangentially (kind of like numa numa originally did), and I'd even prefer that to be the article. But, with the viciousness of the opposition, I'm not sure if that would even be allowed or just blindly speedied as recreation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Why, why, why, why, why? Is this to become a daily thing with this poor guy? The meme is notable. He pumps gas for a living. I'm coming to the debate late, but it seems the community is coming apart at the seams debating procedure over what is really just some Chinese gas station attendant. Enough is truly enough in this case. DarkAudit04:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
This is why I push for process to be followed so hard - everyone simply doing what they want, forgetting a) why we're here, and b) how we come to conclusions has only prolonged this nonsense further. --badlydrawnjefftalk04:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Shoot, I came to this discussion recently myself, I didn't even care about the subject(I must admit, I've never seen this guy's photo anywhere), but it's clear to me that something is rotten in the method of handling this article. The initial closure was doubtful enough that overturning was reasonable, but early closures to delete? That speaks of an agenda to me. I hope that the ArbCom resolves this issues effectively and fairly. FrozenPurpleCube13:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Christ, why are people so afraid to just let the AfD run? Let alone that the previous DRV shows there never was any strong consensus. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
And boom, [[1] deleted again. Including a rather nasty deletion summary. Sigh. This is not convincing of anything but bad behavior on various people's parts. FrozenPurpleCube14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
To quote wheel war policy: Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. That's as absolute as it can be. How can we reduce confusion by wheel warring and making out-of-process deletions & undeletions? Some of the mop & bucket guys seem to have forgotten their role in the project. It's like the court clerk suddenly acting as judge & jury. --Ssbohio03:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for opening this - I am hoping to hell this will be accepted. I was getting advice on opening this myself when I was notified of it. ViridaeTalk16:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, Jeff ... somewhere up there did I catch a hint of an admission that maybe you got just a little bit carried away regarding Brian Peppers? Newyorkbrad20:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, "hacked" is the wrong word to use here. SHA-1 is still very much a one-way function and can never be "hacked" to obtain the original text that yielded the hash. The theoretical vulnerability (and I say theoretical because it hasn't been demonstrated in practice like the MD5 vulnerability has) is that you can find two messages that yield the same hash value. It is not, and likely never will be, possible to, with a given hash value, obtain a different message that also yields that hash value. Long story short, SHA-1 is more than good enough to protect your Wikipedia account. --Cyde Weys03:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago37 comments7 people in discussion
I've echoed the suggestions of Mackensen and others that you take this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Your most recent reply on Mackensen's talk page is:
I could, but I think Arbcom should accept the case with or without an RfC. There's too much misconduct to willfully ignore. Besides, you're only asking me to do that to delay the inevitable, why would I ever take that advice?
There are several problems with this response:
Firstly a number of other editors have asked you to go through RfC: Drini, the closer or the first Articles for deletion discussion, Stifle, who as far as I can tell played no part in earlier discussions, Johnleemk who also seems to have been absent from earlier discussions, and Mackensen, an arbitrator who in rejecting the case said "If you can't be bothered with an RfC then we can't be bothered with an arbitration case." David Gerard has also remarked on your failure to follow process here.
Again you allege misconduct, on a scale too great "to wilfully ignore". If there appears to be such a level of misconduct and yet the arbitrators can't see it, it looks like you'll have to make it more apparent to them.
But finally, despite all the others including arbitrators who have asked you to go to RfC, you say that I in particular am only asking you to go to RfC "to delay the inevitable". Well I'm not sure that you and I can agree on what "the inevitable" is in this case. To my eyes this looks a case on which you really wouldn't like to hear what the arbitrators have to say, and they've hinted on this in their comments on the case. But since they're obviously not going to accept the case until you've at least made an honest attempt to conduct some intermediate steps in dispute resolution, I'm urging you to do so. If an arbitration case follows, the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned, so get cracking. --Tony Sidaway12:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
As Dom noted, you're unlikely to get a complaint of others not having followed process through if you notably refuse to follow the complaint process yourself - David Gerard12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no official process for the matter, as you well know. There's a suggestion to do so, but certainly no requirement. --badlydrawnjefftalk12:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice that Charles Matthews has also rejected, saying "Decline as premature. RfC first helps to clarify, if nothing else". When one two of the rejecting arbitrators request that you file a RfC, it's probably sensible to take their advice seriously. Don't you think? --Tony Sidaway13:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really, no. But if it's a formality they want, if and when it's rejected I'll go there, not before. It's only going to end up in front of them again anyway. --badlydrawnjefftalk13:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on comments like the one above, I begin to suspect that you may not actually believe the misconduct exists. The basic amount of footwork requested of you by various editors is terribly reasonable, and your unwillingness reflects a lack of conviction. If that's the case, you may save time and effort by being upfront about it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Then your suspicions are entirely without merit. As I'm willing to go through the motions if I have to, there's really no question - I simply chose not to delay the inevitable. --badlydrawnjefftalk13:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What's a reasonable alternate conclusion? It seems pretty obvious that if you believed the claims you make, that you would make an effort to resolve the issue. Instead, you're grousing here about how unjust things are. If you're dropping this because you don't know how to do an RFC and would like assistance, I'd be glad to answer any questions if it'll help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I know full well how to do an RfC and how RfCs go, that's why I didn't bother with it. If it's a formality people are going to want to see to accept the inevitable, I'll go through with it and then we'll be back at ArbCom in a couple weeks. --13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Since four arbitrators have already declined the case is rejected, unless my knowledge of the Arbitration policy fails me. You might as well get cracking. If you're serious about not delaying the inevitable, that is. --Tony Sidaway13:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You could be right in this instance. I was relying on the following part of the policy: The Committee will reject a case if four or more arbitrators have already voted not to hear it, or if a reasonable period has passed without overall acceptance and it is unlikely to be accepted. In practice the arbitrators are more flexible and the clerks often let a case molder for a week on the page before removing it as rejected.
Still, since you don't want to delay the inevitable, you don't have to sit around until that happens. You can get going now, in fact. --Tony Sidaway14:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, it looks as if the present RfArb is going to be rejected, and that the arbcom is going to insist on an RfC first. it could be argued thsat this is "process-wokery" and "process for the sake of process" and there used to be a policy that an RfC was not to be used as a required preliminary for an arbcom case, but it seems that one is being insited on here. If you file an RfC I will probably be abel to certify it, but toi make sure that all hoops are properly jumped through, we should probalbaly explictly ask each of the parties who prematurely closed an AfD or DRV discussion or whos actiosn we strongly disagrewe with, to reveerse themselves, on their respective talk pages, first.
Moreover, I think an RfC might actually have some value. it si unlikely to get the peopel whose actions we disagreew with to change their views. But it might help in developing an infomal consensus that such actions are improper and unacceptable. If such a consensus does not ultimately develop, an arbcom ruling will have no effect in the long run, anyway. We also need to explain tha tour focus is not on whether the particualr articel should or should not have been delted, but on how people should work together to promote harmony and civility, and respect seriously made policy arguments, even when one doean't agree with them, rather than merely brushign them off and over-ridign them with IAR. DES(talk)14:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The RfC will have zero value. This I know, I have yet to encounter an RfC that has had any significant value when it comes to conduct or specific content. If/when it's rejected, I'll open the RfC - everyone involved has been spoken to, it's been all over the place, and numerous people have attempted to rectify the situation. Then we'll go through the RfC charade, and, barring some minor miracle, we'll be back at ArbCom in a month or so. If we need to go through the song and dance, we will. --badlydrawnjefftalk14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I can only THANK YOU for not ignoring the rules, and following the due process. It's important to follow process so wikipedia can have a friendly environment. Skipping unilaterally proper process and doing unilaterally arbitration calls, is disruptive. -- drini[meta:] [commons:] 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on your conduct here, I believe you may be less interested in fixing a problem than in creating drama. If that's not your intention, consider that your actions (and, in some cases, inactions) speak louder than words and reconsider. The assumption of good faith is built on a structure maintained by both parties, and your recent construction does not appear to be up to code. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be struggling with interpretation today. My actions are to rescue an article inappropriately deleted and hold the parties who caused the problems and the issues responsible. Based on your conduct here, it appears you're only trying to get me angry, and you may need to be reminded that an assumption of good faith is only required until there's evidence to the contrary. That evidence has been more than forthcoming. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
An article was deleted through a proper AFD. Then closing admin restored it. I redeleted it and the mentioned admin agreed with me undoing him. However he didn't agree with the later undiscussed reundeleting. So article was delete through proper AFD, and undeletor admin agreed it should be redeleted. What you're fighting here is to preserve the unilateral multiple undeletions after my action, which had the blessing of the admin whom I undid. -- drini[meta:] [commons:] 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Jeff, i urge you to try to reamin calm here. I am also very upset at what happpend in thsi case, and I agree that Drini's summery above misses a lot of points. For example, undeltions and restartifn of AfD's pursuant to DRV cdiscussions closed as "relist" can hardly be described as "unilateral" That said , 5 arbs have now voted not to hear the case, with only 1 votign to accept. with only 12 arbs active, I think we need to do the RfC first, at least as a matter of process, since the arbcom insists. I also have some hope that people in general can be brought to realize what I think the vital issues are here, which is not whether or not this particular article gets deleted or not. It is how establsihed editors and admins should treat each other and how they shoudl respond to prior collective decisions with which they do not agree. DES(talk)16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Like, when you miss that a LARGE part of the community thinks your views are wrong? A past RFA comes to my mind. When many many many people say you're wrong, that's something not to miss. And to DES. I can backup with hardfacts my statement, and that Daniel did support my action and criticized the further undeletion. That's what started the wheel war, not me. But yes we need the RFC as a matter of process which is what our badly drawn fellow seems to be missing, he's so rogue. -- drini[meta:] [commons:] 16:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If a large part of the community thought my views were wrong, the policies would be a lot different. The rest, I've explained to you, and perhaps you can read it if you can be bothered. If you have anything of substance to add, please do. Otherwise, find someone else to pester. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
With the utmost respect, your actions during this event lends credence to the concerns expressed during your last RfA, validating the result in a way that's rarely so high profile. I urge you to step back for a moment and consider the holistic nature of the disagreement at hand. Is the community expressing support for your side? Or is it a small but vocal group? If it's the latter, what's the disposition of the group? You're a valuable editor, and it seems that you've picked quite an odd item as your 'line in the sand' considering your rich history here. Prove your detractors wrong and be the better man and refocus on the health of the project. Disagreement isn't bad (it can and has made Wikipedia stronger), but the means of disagreement and discourse are as vital as the individual points being made. A successful challenge is built on a base of reason, logic, and civility. This discussion, on the other hand, instead of a pyramid, is more akin to a single man balancing a broomstick on his palm. It remains vertical by sheer force of his will, but the natural tendency is for it to come crashing to the ground. You deserve better than this tenuous structure, as your history on the project attests. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's funny that you're telling me to focus on the health of the project - that focus is what brings me in disrepute with a small but vocal group. Yes, the community is on my side. If the community was not on my side, our policies and procedures would be quite different than what they are. That I choose to edit freely, improve the project, and stand up to abusive people does not sit well with others - as I'm a threat to the power structure, it's a lot of the reason why past RfAs have failed and will continue to fail, and why I haven't bothered to actually run for full, true adminship, and likely won't. Let's make it basic, Chairboy - are you part of the problem, or part of the solution? --badlydrawnjefftalk17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm part of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Personal responsibility starts with each of us, it is my sincere hope that you will grasp this by the lapels and make it yours. This conflict isn't big enough to "threaten the power structure", because there isn't one. There's just a bunch of people with passions that don't always mesh furiously working to create something special. Five years from now, what will your role in this have been? Where will you be on the list of Wikipedia milestones? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll have contributed more to the project in both procedural and content areas than most of the problematic people. That will be my role. If it means I piss a few people off in the process because I'm no longer interested in putting up with bullshit, oh well. --badlydrawnjefftalk18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
(after EC) I am well aware, Drini, that Daniel supported your close, after the fact, editing his own previous closing ststement to that end. (Note that your close still was not supported by his previous relisting statement, nor IMO by the state of the AfD at the moment you closed it.) I am also aware of the quite improper revert of your close by Matt Crypto, please recall that I was discussing the matter on your talk page at that time. But after all that, the matter was properly brought to DRV, and the discussion there was cloed as a relist It was when the resulting relisted AfD was speedy closed that iMO things really got out of control, and that was iMO the most clearly improper action in the whole affair, except perhaps for Matt Crypto's revert of your close. It is that speedy close and the subsequent attempts to suprss proepr discussion that I want reviewed and overturned. DES(talk)17:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what you both need to do now is to write up an RFC naming the parties in question, saying what they did that was improper and how you and Jeff and anybody else tried to seek a remedy on talk pages and failed. You need to identify the policies broken and estimate the extent to which each of these contributed to whatever damage you think has been done. Then both certify it and plop it down into an RFC, and await responses. --Tony Sidaway17:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony, go away. You're no longer helping, and it's questionable as to whether you ever were in this discussion to begin with. --badlydrawnjefftalk17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh I'm just as eager to get to the bottom of this as you are. You have everything you need for dispute resolution, including (by now) three arbitrators who are telling you that arbitration would be premature. Premature, get that? Not inappropriate, but simply requiring the community to go through an intermediate stage. Since you're continuing to make accusations against administrators, it's up to you to start the ball rolling. --Tony Sidaway17:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, it is rather uncivil to engage in complaints against people then tell them to go away when they try to talk to you about them. (H)17:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, to clarify: this discussion was begun by Viridae on User talk:Mackensen. I interjected when it became clear that Mackensen's take on the matter was considerably at variance with Jeff's, and suggested that Mackensen might like to consider arbitration anyway, "if only to establish that the Biographies of living persons policy has real teeth."
Jeff, who had been mentioned in the discussion by Mackensen and had then joined in, engaged me in discussion about the subject of the arbitration. When it promised to be long and drawn out, and Jeff had shown clear reluctance in the face of direct suggestions by Mackensen and many others that he consider Requests for comment, I brought the discussion to Jeff's own talk page rather than continue to clutter Mackensen's talk page. --Tony Sidaway18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering he referred to me as a troll in arbitration, I see no need to worry about it any further. Tony's uninterested in dealing with the situation, so I'm asking him to not bother with it any further. --badlydrawnjefftalk18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
My words did imply that there was a certain trollishness about your persistent abuse of process here. That was unkind. Assuming good faith seems the best path. I apologise for that. --Tony Sidaway18:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
RFC
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I know it's become fashionable to make posts on Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) complaining about something someone has done that seems wrong, but I wonder if you'd given a thought to the dispute resolution process? Perhaps an RFC on the Crystal Gail Mangum affair would help us to get this thing sorted out. If you can define your dispute in terms of failure to comply with Wikipedia policies (and it looks to me like you can), then perhaps it's time to do that. I've also suggested this to Nardman1 and Viridae. --Tony Sidaway19:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop now.
Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion
What you are doing is intensely disruptive. The way to proceed is through dispute resolution, not by repeatedly asking for deletion review unti you get the answer you want. Do that again and so help me I will block you. The repeated fuckwittery is reinforcing the WP:BLP problem by continually reinforcing the link between this poor kid's name and his victimisation. We do not need it. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What victimization? He promotes it himself. And bad move calling it trolling. Apparently, you want this to head to ArbCom. You want it, you got it. Just remember - you caused it. --badlydrawnjefftalk22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Your continued trolling is unproductive and unhelpful, and if you do not improve and grow up you will find yourself in hot water. // Pilotguyhold short21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Fuck off. Fuck right off. What I want is to move the debate to a forum where it will not be a pitched battle, and where there is at least a chance of a nuanced resolution. DRV does not work for this, if the last couple of days have not proven that to you then I have been wasting my time treating you as an intelligent human being. The debate also need sot last long enough that we can find out whether the meme will actually last more than a week. I am trying, in other words, to stop you making even more of a tit of yourself than you already have. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Jef, if you are indeed not trolling, then try acting in a way less likely to generate a negative response. What you are doing is indistinguishable from trolling. (H)22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it seems there's an escalation of incivility here. If the concern is to avoid a problem, it's not by threatening blocks or calling actions fuckwittery. Nor saying nobody cares. Nor is saying somebody wants to be a dick. The way to develop consensus involves a lot more civil and polite behavior than I'm seeing here. FrozenPurpleCube00:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked into the dispute other than read the above and do a little research. Here's my 2 cents in hopes of easing some tensions. I found only about six news articles on Qian Zhijun and I found five on Xiao Pang (without mention that his name is Qian Zhijun), which makes about eleven total. This is really a borderline case. I know the articles say he's famous, but not enough to generate much English language press coverage. I probably could write a Wikipedia article on the topic (perhaps three or four paragraphs with each sentence referenced) that meets all Wikipedia process, but would not fault a consensus if it were deleted. As for "Little fatty", he's known as "Wee Fatty" (Scotland, Malaysia), "Fat Boy" (China), "Gordito" (Spain), "Little fatty" (USA). This does not help focus such an article. -- Jreferee00:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I found eleven different English press coverages. I didn't see the article. If each sentence was referenced, then it was fully referenced. -- Jreferee00:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
In fact, one person had it at 1.7 refs/sentence if you broke it down. 11 total references is not borderline. 11 references is clearly noteworthy. To call it borderline is completely foreign to me, not to mention systematic bias. --badlydrawnjefftalk01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
By borderline, I did not mean that the topic could not meet Wikipedia criteria. There is enough information to create a valid, Wikipedia article on the topic and the topic should be on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, individuals hold more than one view as to what Wikipedia criteria are. For example, some people believe Wikipedia notability means fame even though WP:N states that Wikipedia notability means enough information from reliable sources to write an attributable article. Because there is not much English language press coverage, it seems just as likely that the 'Wikipedia notability means fame group' may be the majority at an AfD. In other words, the topic is not borderline, it is the AfD consensus falling one way or another that is borderline. -- Jreferee15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
I've edited your presentation and one of the outside statements [2] to remove the name or conceal it behind pipes. This is because of privacy concerns. Please respect this, but do get back to me, or else make reasonable edits, if you think I've altered the RFC unreasonably. Out of deference to the sensitivity of the case, and of the audacity of these edits, I will make no comments on the RFC. --Tony Sidaway01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as he's 19, that really made no sense. I'm going to change the age just to highlight the misinformation, but not revert back the name for now. And yes, you should comment on the RfC. Don't deny yourself the ability to have opinions the way you deny the rest of us. --badlydrawnjefftalk02:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, hopefully you can see where a reply like the one above is unlikely to move the discussion toward resolution, regardless of the provocation it's replying to. That said, judging from the overall tone of Tony Sidaway's comments here, I could see where you might take his apology to be disingenuous, even sarcastic. I've found myself on the opposite side from Tony on more than one occasion, but I haven't seen reason to doubt that he is working to improve the product, an act of good faith. --Ssbohio04:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony and Jeff share a quirk of communication that I've noticed; I suspect we all do it, but I've noticed it in these two instances. Both seem to make statements that presuppose assumptions that they know the other party doesn't share. It's a good way to keep a conversation going in circles. -GTBacchus(talk)04:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The boy's family has considered suing, but with such difficulty finding a defendant, apparently he has made a pragmatic decision to try to make the most of it. --Tony Sidaway12:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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. Ralbot04:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The Game (game)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Back on deletion review. See if you can get them to relist it per the new evidence I listed.
I'm only slightly a single-purpose account, as I also edit West Midlands-related articles.
Nothing wrong with that, eh?? --Flexwick3209:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If you can e-mail me the sources you have, that would probably be best They're not going to accept something from a random guy. --badlydrawnjefftalk12:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Question
Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
Jeff, quick question. You are complaining that the RfC is unlikely to change minds and provide a solution. Can I simply ask, are there circumstances under which this RfC would change your mind and cause you to drop the whole thing. Or is it your intention to launch more procedural attempts (DRV RfArb) to get this article reinstated come what may?--Docg12:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Change my mind? No, I don't believe there's anything that could change my mind on this particular issue save meteors or action from the subject himself. The article needs to be reinstated, the wheel warring surrounding it needs to be addressed, and administrators need to start paying better attention to consensus and the desires of the community. --badlydrawnjefftalk12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So you will launch another DRV on this regardless? Are we doomed to keep fighting these things?--Docg12:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Depends on a lot of things. Arbcom's probably the next step on this, and a DRV is likely inevitable unless someone steps up to the plate and reverses the improper deletions. But yes, I will continue to work to get this article undeleted. --badlydrawnjefftalk12:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, once someone has decided that they will never change their mind about an issue then the discussion becomes less productive and more adversarial. Perhaps you can at least keep the possibility of being convinced otherwise open. Otherwise there is little point in talking to you, rather people will be talking to those who remain open to consideration of other peoples opinions while you talk to them. I hope that made sense. (H)15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What would change here? The article meets every standard, which is being viciously denied by people who are intent on seeing it disappear. Obviously, my mind could be changed if something significant occurred, but let's be realistic - there's no OTRS issue, no chance of a self-promoter filing a lawsuit, and those are really the only earth-shattering issues at hand here that would be worth noting. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not know very much at all about the current situation. The advice was meant to be general, and I frankly cannot think of a situation where I could confidently pre-decide not to change my mind. To do so would unfairly limit myself, and reduce people's respect for my opinions. (H)15:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a good look at the situation - has any respect for my opinions been shown by the people at fault here? That was off the table ages ago. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not going to take a look at the situation, such things do not interest me. As for the respect your opinions are being shown, well perhaps you can find some correlation between that and the advice I gave. (H)15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This would seem to reflect your own lack of respect for the opinions of others. You have already admitted that the original AFD closure correctly reflected consensus here yet you still defend the overturn decision which by definition cannot therefore be correct. You claim that others are going against consensus when you implicitly admit that you are trampling all over it. You can hardly expect people to respect your opinions when they are so demonstrably inconsistent with reality. —Phil | Talk15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand DRV, then. An AfD closure can be overturned even if the original closure with the original issues was correct. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration
Since you have made clear that the RfC is not going to change your behaviour, I have requested arbitration. You may comment there.--Docg16:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Doc, before blowing this more out of proportion, what circumstances under the RfC do you believe should cause Jeff to change his mind and cause him to drop the whole thing? -- Jreferee17:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments on RFC
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, while I certainly do agree that some of the summaries are a bit inflammatory, I don't think your responses are any less inflammatory. You might wish to tone them down a bit. I understand how it's upsetting, but it'd be better to take the high road. FrozenPurpleCube16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hello,
There seems to be an unwritten rule: "Minors known exclusively for events which would embarrass them will not be mentioned by name or have articles created containing their name or image"
Even though a subject may pass the Wikipedia core policies of Verifiability, No Original Research, and Neutral point of view, it seems that this unwritten rule trumps the written rules of verifiability, reliable sources and neutral point-of-view.
There is a section in Biographies of living persons which applies tangentially: "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."
But, the "little fatty" article was sourced, neutral, and on-topic and was pared back to a sourced, neutral, and on-topic form.
That appears to me to be the center of the dispute:
1)You believe that the article meets all written Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion and should therefore be included.
2)Others believe that the unwritten rule overrides the written rules.
But, as they are unable to cite the unwritten rule (because it is unwritten) if makes a frustrating process for both sides.
You get frustrated because they will not deal with your arguments based on the written policies and facts.
They get frustrated because you won't agree that their unwritten rule makes the written policies and facts irrelevent.
I don't know why a "Minors known exclusively for events which would embarrass them will not be mentioned by name or have articles created containing their name or image" statement (or something similar) has not been added to the WP:BLP section - it seems reasonable and would have prevented this dispute. I will ask.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs)
He's not a minor, it's irrelevant. Furthermore, he's a self-promoter. I'd be more sympathetic to the opposing situation if he was completely unwitting and had nothing to do with his fame. But let's be clear - at no time should a minor be subjected to that sort of thing here. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There errors in the logic here is 1) that no policy says that things which are verifiable and sources must be included, or even necessarily can be included in an encyclopeida. That all depends of context and consensus. 2) We are not rule-bound.--Docg16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
He now is 20 years old, set up his own blog on Sina with pictures saying, "I welcome you to PhotoShop my pictures" in November 2006 to generate more publicity for himself, and, as reporeted in February 2007, now is taken advantage of his fame to play emperor Liu Shan in a new cinematographic adaptation of "the romance of the Three Kingdoms." -- Jreferee17:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
christ
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yes, yes they are. Many wish i was banned during the ED debacle, and they've never found anything to hang on me, and still don't. You get used to it, trust me. If it's any consolation, I've been begging for them to take me to ArbCom for a year now, someone finally bit. It'll be fun, really. I'm glad I mostly finished Robert Benchley over the weekend. d:-P --badlydrawnjefftalk23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I salute you for standing by your beliefs, in the face of despicable behavior and words. How they act and what they say about you, reflects infinitely more so on themselves. In the end, the only person we have to face is ourselves, and wherever we stood up when we should have. Thank you. —MichaelLinnear22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to second this - the way you've been treated was ridiculous, and I hope you get the accountability you're looking for. --Haemo07:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Civility
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
You've managed to both blocked and unblocked without so much as a note on your talk page. I don't know what to make of that other than being appalled. Mackensen(talk)02:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I just left Mackensen a note on his talk page explaining my brief delay in notifying Mr. Raymond, but I just want to make a note here as well. The reason it took twelve minutes (which, admittedly, isn't too long) between my unblocking and my note to Mr. Raymond is that I just wanted to make sure my diction was appropriate. Hope this clarifies things a bit and alleviates any concerns. Cheers fellows gaillimhConas tá tú?02:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Hi Mr. Raymond! I just wanted to drop you a line to note that I've unblocked you from editing Wikipedia. As the fellow who blocked you didn't bother to leave you a warning prior to his action or a notification of this action, it might very well be likely that you didn't even know you were blocked, hehe. In any case, I hope you weren't adversely affected by these actions and happy editing! If I may leave some unsolicited advice while I have you here; while I do feel as though your block was rather unwarranted and the circumstances surrounding this were shady, at best, I would recommend that you continue your various discussions on the current requests for comment / arbitration with the requisite cooperation, compromise, and geniality necessary to resolve these situations. A cooperative and generally affable atmosphere is likely the only way that a resolution can happen. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú?02:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Er... that sounds ominous. Jeff ... don't escalate it, please. Please? A college student admin blocked you out of high spirits, several others nearly broke their mice trying to unblock. Mistakes happen. Zzinj will be thoroughly criticized, but it should end there, escalating will just make it worse for all sides. --AnonEMouse(squeak)02:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this is at Arbcom, and this will be dealt with. I saw this coming from a mile away, I simply didn't expect it tonight. Hell, look at the comment about it at AN/I - this is very problematic, and this will be dealt with. --badlydrawnjefftalk02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The thread at AN/I indicates that the admin community unanimously agrees that it was a terrible decision. Don't you get it Jeff? We're already on your side. No further crusade is necessary. Please don't up the drama ante. -GTBacchus(talk)03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, ideally everyone would step up and be accountable. When they don't, demanding names is still upping the drama ante. You can't control them, but you can control how you react to them. Do you want to escalate, or to defuse? You have the power to do either, and nobody else can force your hand. -GTBacchus(talk)03:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually think, at this point, they're one in the same. A line has been crossed here on a number of levels that I'm not entirely sure you're aware of, and by no fault of your own. --badlydrawnjefftalk03:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I understand you're justifiably pissed over this, and probably out for blood. But let's at least try to keep things civil. Some people really made a bad decision, and while I hope they'll be stand up and admit their shameful conduct, maybe even resign their admin privileges, I hope you don't let yourself get too enraged by this action. It'll be too easy to get caught up in the blind heat of passion. FrozenPurpleCube02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Perfectly civil, as is my typical norm. I simply expect the parties involved with this to step up to the plate. This was beyond the pale. --badlydrawnjefftalk02:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
We fucked up, and we're sorry
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
I can't speak for all of the people who were in that channel. Personally, I'm feeling very guilty that I didn't step up and do anything while I had the chance (I was multitasking, but still glancing at the chat screen from time to time). I hope you accept my apology for letting this happen. Even if you don't, I'll feel better. Sean William03:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a particular variety of foolishness that is expressly unwelcome on -admins, per rules on WP:WEA and past problems - it's one thing to come to -admins for sanity checking your urge to block someone, it's quite another not to flag it on ANI afterwards! I'll try to have a word with the guy and see what on Earth he was thinking. My apologies to all, and especially to you - David Gerard10:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to join a witch-hunt for the blocking admin. But, for the record, the block was sheer idiotic madness - and had I been on-line, I'd immediately have unblocked you myself. Admins tools are not the way to resolve disputes.--Docg18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Jeff, I wasn't in the admins IRC channel at the time, but the discussion post-mortem is indicating that Zsinj's actions were not, repeat not taken based on any sort of general discussion or consensus of any substantial number of channel users. Very few (three to four at the most) offered any sort of support, even qualified - and many more expressed dismay that such an action would be considered. There was never any consensus established within the channel that the block was a good idea. The block rationale given by Zsinj, then, was untruthful, and you should not take that person's actions to represent those who use the channel. Furthermore, I don't believe that any block is justified by a mere IRC discussion - IRC is a useful tool to "sanity-check" blocks, but it should never be represented as some sort of decision-making body qualified to issue blocks. This debacle clearly reflects poorly on those of us who use the channel, even if only occasionally, and I think it's my duty to let you know that I repudiate such conduct. FCYTravis03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If you were there, I suggest making a statement to Arbcom and naming names. If you weren't there, I'm glad, and I'm glad you repudiate the activity, but there's one way to fix it now. --badlydrawnjefftalk04:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Your block log
Latest comment: 17 years ago31 comments11 people in discussion
It rather strikes me that "inappropriate block" is not quite adequate: shall I block you for a second or something and then unblock with the summary "Overwhelming community consensus to unblock, very silly block, no stain on reputation" or something like that? Cheers, MoreschiTalk12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it was an IRC block, they can damn well petition the developers to remove the block reference completely. Then they will realise the consequences of their stupidity. Giano12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Not necessary, really. I'm not planning on running for adminship again, which is the only real place it would make a difference, and the discussions don't disappear, so it's cool. Thanks for the offer, though. --badlydrawnjefftalk12:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
As you wish, though you might possibly might like to consider that those not familiar with the overwhelming rejection of this block might think that "inappropriate block" is not the strongest-worded rationale for unblocking, become confused, and might think you're more evil than you actually are. Agreed that it doesn't make a real difference away from RfA, though. Your choice:)
I wish I'd been in the channel at the time, cuz then this would never have happened. My apologies for that, and the distress caused. Though seeing as Tony's told the admin in question not to play with their tools while drunk, and I've told them not to confuse their tools with their genitalia, you might almost consider them adequately chastised. Just a thought. Cheers, MoreschiTalk13:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The perception of badlydrawnjeff has not matched the reality of badlydrawnjeff in close to a year. I've weathered those storms, I think I can weather these. Thanks, though. --badlydrawnjefftalk13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Reacting graciously to a wrongful block will only make you look better, in the eyes of pretty much everyone. Getting unduly upset over it will only make you look, well, fanatical. Friday(talk)14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
To make any positive contribution, particularly changes in policy for example, people must take you seriously and not regard you as a kook. Friday(talk)14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In a discussion that seriously lacks mutual respect, it may be in your best interest in the future to avoid using any loaded words at all (i.e. kook, gracious, unduly, fanatical). --MalcolmGinTalk / Conts15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, while I find Friday's choice of words unfortunate, I think there's a core of truth to what he's saying. If you wish to improve Wikipedia, then you can't afford to not care what people think about you. Too much here depends on reputation. If you hurt your reputation, you hurt your ability to do good. That's a fact of life at Wikipedia. If you're perceived as being over-the-top, the articles suffer. -GTBacchus(talk)15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You have no idea how I would react. You can dismiss Friday, if you like, but then you should listen to someone else. Don't let this tree distract you from the forest, or the forest will suffer. You make a better editor than you do a martyr. -GTBacchus(talk)15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF. :-) Here, I'll say it, you like me, I gather. (I'll also leave out the name calling, that will help too. Aah nuts, edit conflict.) Reacting graciously to a wrongful block really will make you look better. Honest. --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
While I agree in principle, if one is never angry and always supportive and helpful, one risks looking badly for reasons to do with taking too much inappropriate behavior on the chin. On occasion it is useful/understandable to be angry and to display it. --MalcolmGinTalk / Conts15:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, sorry again if I said the wrong thing- believe it or not, I'm on your side here. I think pretty much everyone is. If you have logs, I encourage you to post them. Anyone who cares more about freenode rules than the good of the project is simply in the wrong place and can be ignored. Friday(talk)15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If people in some chat room are doing things detrimental to Wikipedia, don't Wikipedia editors deserve to know about it, given an easy way to do this? Transparency is a large part of what lets Wikipedia work. Friday(talk)16:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Part of it is an inability to prove the validity, however. That's why I'm hoping unrelated people who have their own logs (since I don't have access to the channel) step up and present them to ArbCom as well. --badlydrawnjefftalk17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding my encouraging people to break the rules of some chat room, I sure am. Where the interests of some chat room conflicts with the interests of the project, I know which side I'm on. Friday(talk)17:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, my rationale is separate - if I'm going to be calling for sanctions against three or four people, I'm going to give them the opportunity that I wasn't given - to actually have the evidence in front of them and thus have the ability to defend themselves. Maybe it's time for the IRC guidelines/policies/whatever they are to cdhange, bu we'll see. --badlydrawnjefftalk17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with the strategy of waiting for some third party to present the logs to Arbitration or to the "public" rather than you doing it. Unless you get a third party or some coalition of folks willing to say that the logs provided were complete and unaltered, you may get vilified by folks who simply don't trust you and accused of altering the logs to make certain parties look better or worse. --MalcolmGinTalk / Conts18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Friday, and encourge people to break freenode rules if said rules prohibit the posting of logs (I dispute that such rule exists on freenode). If I were to somehow acquire the logs, I would post them on a private and acceptably anonymous webhost without providing identifing information about the logger. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think you've made it clear in your research that Freenode rules don't prohibit it. Now we have to figure out where, if anywhere, Wikipedia rules prohibit it, and why. --badlydrawnjefftalk18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that IRC logs take some sort of prize for "unreliable source", and are pretty much ways to generate intarweb drama (and lulz for those who go for lulz) and not actually useful in resolving disputes rather than exacerbating them. I would suggest you forward them to the arb com for the case, rather than post them for public dramatisation (including, no doubt, a TV and novelisation series) - David Gerard18:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as the logs go, I'd strongly advocate making them public. An admin should never do or say anything when acting as an admin which he is unwilling to have the hoi polloi review. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes is always at issue when there is a power imbalance in a community -- who will watch the watchers? Thanks for holding feet to the fire in the interest of accountability. --Ssbohio04:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Personal Appology
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jeff. By now, I believe you have seen my public apology. I would like to take the time to make a personal one directly to you.
As you are aware, I was in the #wikipedia-en-admins channel on freenode last night. I had gotten back from class relatively later than usual and saw that the discussion was in regard to your actions around the QZ article and it's related issues. At that point, I had no interaction with any of the involved parties nor any of the events that had occurred up to that point. In short, I was ignorant. The majority of the two hours I spent talking with my peers consisted of getting to the root of the problem. As this had been going on for over a week, I felt that getting to the root of the disagreement was necessary. It was expressed to me that your actions were not in the best interests of the encyclopedia from the perspective of administrators involved (as that's who was in the channel). I continued to ask questions so as to form my own opinion (instead of bandwagoning on others' opinions). When I brought up the idea of a block, I was met with significantly less opposition than I was support. I will acknowledge that this was group think at it's best even though I did not realize it.
As such, I made an error that I am not prone to making. My regular administrator actions consist mostly of working in backlogs and the occasional assisting with vandalism reversion and prevention. Making such a controversial action was not in anyone's best interests, especially not my own. I realize that I have angered you. Also realize that when I woke up this morning, it took me longer to read everything that had been said with regard to my action than the amount of time your block was in effect. While this is not a constructive point, please realize that I am truely sorry for the additional stress I have caused you. It is unfortunate I have not been able to meet you earlier in better conditions and I hope that sometime in the future we may be able to make up for time lost.
Please note that I can only release information from that chat room that I contributed to it (if I can even do that). I realize you want "name and shame" for those who contributed to me making my decision, but also realize that only one person can click the block button and that was me. In retrospect, I now realize how much worse blocking you was than before. I had the false impression that you were irrational beyond the point of saving without intervention. While I do not know if this is completely not the case, I look forward to working with you to resolve this so that we can both get back to the original reason we're here: working on an encyclopedia. ZsinjTalk13:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Any further comments on this can be saved for ArbCom. I'll reiterate where I've said elsewhere that you should resign your position. --badlydrawnjefftalk13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've asked a favor of you via email. The favor is not private as I have asked others the same question on-wiki. ZsinjTalk16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've sent them to Arbcom, I'm not currently interested in distributing them anywhere else at this stage. If they get distributed anywhere else, it's publically if there's a way to do so without running afoul of the various policies. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jeff. I wish I'd been on en-admins at the relevant time, I feel I might have made useful noises. (Though perhaps plenty of people already did, I wouldn't know.) Anyway, I never go there now, unfortunately, as it's been made quite clear how unwelcome I am. Bishonen | talk15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the good vibes. I'd imagine Bishzilla would have had a full tummy by the time it was done dealing with the situation. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I as well - blocking a long standing editor without so much as a post, let alone a discussion with you, is beyond the pale. I am truly horrified this happened. KillerChihuahua?!?15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I decided to help with the precedent regarding IRC related issues. I was subjected to an IRC coordinate attack last year. I've tried appealing it and it got rejected [3]. This may be useful to you in establishing the relative permanence of what is being done on IRC. jbolden1517Talk18:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry demon but you don't get to decide what goes to arbitration. "We have the right to make decisions, we offer no avenue for appeal" should not stand. I most certainly do intend to either make it clear that the policy of wikipedia is secret evidence, or to get these sorts of things overturned. Everything is subject arbitration jbolden1517Talk18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Not asking you to, just making you aware of it. You have enough problems on your own. Use it as evidence as you see fit. jbolden1517Talk19:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't uncivil. Although that was a nice little abuse of your rollback tool there. Note the new upload, and quit it. --badlydrawnjefftalk23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If I might interject - the point of asking for a source for images such as this is to specifically identify the copyright holder on the image page. It's irrelevant whether a random 30-edit redlink scanned it or Amazon did; neither has any copyright interest in the image. —Cryptic23:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, there's really no way to do that with most album images, and many book images. The person who created it may not have the distribution license, which is the important part and not the copyright. The source is really secondary, especially on issues of fair use in a promotional nature. But people need to be paranoid, so the source, as best can be derived, is presented. --badlydrawnjefftalk23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Please obtain the information required. I have owned hundreds of albums and it's usually easy enough to find who the cover artist was. For instance, the cover art for the Yes album Fragile is used to sell the Yes music, but the copyright of the artwork is owned by Roger Dean. so it's important to source things properly. --Tony Sidaway23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Things are sourced properly. This myth should end. Even now, you still get it wrong - whether Roger Dean owns the copyright (and I can't verify that) isn't relevant to our needs. Thus, we reference it to the best of our abilities. For instance, the fair use rationale I've added to this image in question is more specific than fair use rationales on images on featured articles, a place that is vicious about fair use. --badlydrawnjefftalk23:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's see if I got things straight. There's a consensed criteria for fair use images Check. It asks for a proper source AND copyright holder. Check. Pointing to amazon as source of the image fulfills the source part. Check. Don't have the copyright holder? BAh, doesn't matter, source it's enough even criteria says otherwise. Check.
I do. I haven't ignored the rules at all - the copyright holder (or, specifically, the important part - the person with the distribution license) is not known on many, if any, of these. So we put what we do know, that the copyright is not held by Amazon, but rather by the person or people who provided the image in question. Thus, everything we need to know to pass our absurd fair use policy is available. No problems, and we move on. If people continue to disagree, as it seems people are wont to do, IfD's down the hall. Seems like the logical place to figure out the dispute, no? --badlydrawnjefftalk00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, criteria says that to host a fair use image you must put
(a) Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source.
you're being a little sneaky on
Fair use in Youth (Matisyahu album), taken from the requisite listing at Amazon.com, which was provided to them by the requisite holder of the distribution license
since that's like saying "you can use any image found at google, ask for the copyright holder to the webmaster". I see your point, and I agree the policy it's a bit anal, but that's how it's written and how it should be done. -- drini[meta:] [commons:] 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
And I believe that I'm following the criteria. This isn't the same as Google, as we don't know where Random Website on Google got the image, although we know where Amazon gets theirs, as a legitimate retailer. Yes, our fair use criteria is absurd and anal. Yes, I'm perfectly willing to fall in line with it until we get around to fixing it. But saying an honest assessment of the source (where the image comes from and that the image's copyright/distribution license is held by the provider of the content) is not a source is simply silly. I personally had the language vetted by two separate fair use hounds, who said that, for this type of media, it was permissable. I'll trust them. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that like... fair use cabalism ? People were disagreeing with you, and you plain revert instead of first settling it with a discussion. -- drini[meta:] [commons:] 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
When there's a dispute over the licensing, the proper thing to do is bring it elsehwere instead of simply asserting repeatedly that it doesn't meet the criteria. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The image WAS sourced, no dispute about it, but besides sourcing you also had to attribute the copyright holder (since you didn't know it you didn't do it), and thus failed criteria 10a. You say the policy is absurd and we should not comply it 100%. "I don't know" it's no excuse. You must attribute copyright holder in order to uplaod a fair use image, you were passing the burden on somebody else instead of doing what you were required. Since you thought the consensed policy is abusrd, then you thougth it was valid to workaround it not adding what you were required to.-- drini[meta:] [commons:] 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
We disagree on this. It wasn't "I don't know," it was "I know, and it's whatever holder provided the image to the source." The reference that's there now is no more detailed, and, in fact, less so - it's highly speculative and at least two/thirds untrue. It's a valid disagreement, but I don't feel I was leaving improper or incomplete information. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Life (UK TV series)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Oh, oops, I am so sorry, I meant for it to be a normal [proposal] deletion, thanks for changing it..Please reply to me on my talk pageCheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib.23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Note
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Excellent, thank you. As a note, because if I reply to Gerard's e-mail I'll say something I regret, I have since received logs from a second individual who I will not out, but someone I trust, and the logs match. I do not doubt their accuracy the way I did when I forwarded them off originally. --badlydrawnjefftalk19:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I saw this. I'm just trying to figure out the right response, because I think the rote "that isn't saying much lately" lacks the punch I need. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Userboxen
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
That's news that Tony "can have someone delete them". Is Tony now a king of sorts who "has" admins do what he tells them to? --Irpen04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Anybody can get an admin to do something if he has a reasonable case and puts it well. If deletion were merited I would have had an admin delete them. --Tony Sidaway19:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Jeff, the idea here is that this encyclopedia should not be a vehicle for permanently recording and propagating sordid, funny, unusual, scandalous or otherwise-temporarily-interesting pieces of otherwise-private persons' lives. That idea is not going to go away, and indeed, it will be the future of this encyclopedia. This is not ever going to mean we'll delete Monica Lewinsky or Jack Ruby - it means that we won't any longer serve as an archive of whatever personal tidbits about private persons happened to make the news today. We are going to allow people to gracefully grow old and fade away, without having to stare at a Wikipedia article about something which happened to them 70 years ago dogging them for the remainder of their lives. That is ethical, that is just - and I'm going to tell you now, it's what is going to happen. Don't say I didn't warn you when ArbCom tells you the same thing. FCYTravis02:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I heard you the first time. My answer is the same. If you want to change policy, do so without being disruptive about it, which is what you're encouraging with this nonsense. --badlydrawnjefftalk02:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the Foundation could simply hand down an edict, but my guess is you'd call that even more disruptive. Jeff, these aren't matters which can be decided by popular vote - it's not necessarily "popular" that we should take into account our impacts and potential impacts on outside lives. Guess what? That's of no consequence. Considering that impact is the right thing to do, period.
We can't pretend any longer that this is some grand experiment which we can play around on like a sandbox, without any consequences or doing any real damage. This is a real Web site, which is really in the top-10 most visited sites on the Internets. Whether we like it or not, that throws grand responsibilities upon us.
Jeff, I'm torn as always. You are an outstanding, beyond outstanding article contributor, and you even managed to shift my thinking on speedy deletions by bringing out so many absolutely wrongheaded ones. But you have to understand where we're coming from - and that is the idea that to fulfill our mission of spreading human knowledge does not require that we tell the world that these two kids who were switched at birth should now have to bear the burden of having the whole world know about it for the remainder of their natural lives and far beyond into eternity. FCYTravis02:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Policy hasn't actually changed, all that's changed is that we have become so big as to require a more rigorous enforcement of policy. When this was nerdopedia, back when, it didn't matter overmuch. Now it does. Now we have distraught people emailing us and telling us in graphic detail how much it hurts when Wikipedia scoops up an Interweb full of shit and dumps it on their head. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Policy has never allowed us to wholesale delete sourced material that some believe is objectionable. So you're right, the policy hasn't changed - more people are being disruptive about it, that's all. --badlydrawnjefftalk12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
christ again
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
This has already gone way too far in the deletionist direction. Now we've got articles about scammers getting their deletions forced through. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't a hopeless slippery slope, but it's amazing the shitstorm that's erupted that all started with QZ. If only we had emergency desysoppings for wheel warring so these guys would have to stop deleting articles until they talked things out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
In the request for arbitration, see the additional comment by doc. His second example was an article about a minister who solicited donations by mail for prayers. It was a little firsthand by someone who had gotten scammed, but it cited sources even though it was negative in tone. Doc deleted it unilaterally and then is claiming that jeff was disruptive by wanting a history undeletion for DRV. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Now you've lost me
Latest comment: 17 years ago31 comments10 people in discussion
They were undeleted and relisted. I deleted them again on other grounds. That DRV now makes no sense. However, if you think the DRV close was invalid, then the deleting admin must have been in error not me.--Docg02:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, I don't see them undeleted and relisted. I see another invalid close. So I've reverted you, seeing as you've not completed the relisting. --badlydrawnjefftalk02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
And BTW, if you look you will see that the closure WAS explained by the admin. So I don't know why you are calling it disruptive. I think it was wrong, but I'm surprised you do. He undeleted and relisted - as you can see. Was that invalid? --Docg02:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, his closure was invalid. Proper result, but invalid. The reason you keep reinstating it is to protect your abusive closure. You know, you'd make this a lot easier if you'd actually present a case than "have a heart, I'm right." Don't you realize this is half the problem? --badlydrawnjefftalk02:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn relist - I listed. That there had been no afd when there was no criteria for speedy deletion was the basis of the DRV essentially. ViridaeTalk02:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So the close was invalid Jeff. OK. Well, I'm glad I sorted it by redeleting. You'd be better chiding Viridea for what you called a "disruptive and invalid close." Thanks.--Docg03:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've chided him here. And Viridae, bad closure. There, I've done it twice. Now, doc, do the right thing. If you're capable at this point. --badlydrawnjefftalk03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
But, you've just argued I was in the right. You've just said that the closure was wrong. If the closure was wrong, then the undeletion was out of process. Why would I restore an out-of-process deletion?--Docg03:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, why feeding? Can't you see they are having fun? ArbCom is the right venue since with the expressed attitudes of the known characters here is no point to continue this. The case can't not get accepted. Save your time arguing this. --Irpen03:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, from your last post I figure that you realize that you are just being baited and still continue trying to have a discussion under these conditions. Point is what makes you so sure that you won't take the bait? Arguing with Doc while he posts the entries like above is pointless and will only get you more upset with no result. ArbCom will hopefully sort out this nonsense. --Irpen03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I know better, I've been baited successfully by many of the same people in the past, so I'm simply not going to let it happen again. --badlydrawnjefftalk03:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I hope you are right but in my experience the only way to deal with baiting is ignoring it. You do realize of course that the discussion is likely going on at certain medium about what to do next and the responses you are getting, even if signed by one user, can very well be crafted by more than one. --Irpen03:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, since the desysop you have an immense moral advantage, & you should try not to lose it by multiple little replies, instead of less frequent substantial ones. Just my opinion.DGG18:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes that statement was prepared on a sub-page of Doc's userspace and I for one certainly contributed to it. But I don't think this is what Irpen is getting at--in fact I really wonder what it is that he's getting at. Doc sitting around asking people "what shall I say?" before he edits? Don't think Doc needs that kind of advice. He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself. --Tony Sidaway21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
A favor to ask of the "Vile Dark Lord of Inclusionism"
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I've been communicating with a contributor whose article was deleted, due in large part to my taking it to AfD. He was writing an article about a piece of software (possible COI issues have not been explored, though based on his other edits, they might exist). The article, as it existed at the time I saw it, had substantial bulk, but made no assertions of notability whatsoever. Since other editors had put up "advertisement" templates only to see them taken down within minutes by the article's creator, I decided a prod tag would probably meet a similar fate and took the article to AfD instead (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyware terminator). The article writer contacted me soon thereafter and it quickly became clear that the writer was much more inexperienced than I had anticipated.
I explained the notability criteria to him and he said he'd work on it. I went to bed intending to take the AfD down in the morning if he'd found some outside sources or really made any assertion of notability at all, but by the time I woke up, someone had come along and speedied it out of process (Argh!). Since you seem to be one of those most familiar with process around here, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to talk to the contributor, Rajeshontheweb (talk·contribs), and explain what his options are for getting his article to actually get the due process it deserved. I'm really not sure in what direction he should take this. The conversation so far is here: User talk:Dynaflow#Spyware terminator marked for deletion??? Thanks if you can help the guy out. --Dynaflowbabble04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
These are times I wish we could find a balance between gaming the deletion system and not speedying things at AfD. I'll drop over there, I don't know how much I can do, though, but I'll try. --badlydrawnjefftalk04:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I could probably be classified as staying more on the deletionist side of the big, imaginary line, I do like to see articles that can be saved get the time they need to save themselves; and out-of-process deletions can be mind-bendingly annoying, escecially when an editor is making a good-faith effort to fix things. This article was definitely not a CSD G11 case, otherwise I would have put a db tag on it rather than take it to AfD. It might still have been spam (we'll have to see what the author does with it to assert notability), but it might also have just been an amateurishly-written article on an otherwise acceptable topic. It certainly wasn't "blatant," in any case. --Dynaflowbabble05:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Glenphillipspromo.jpg
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Glenphillipspromo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- moe.RONLet's talk | done02:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Ralbot05:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
From the nomination page:
(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
A message
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
You have one from me too. Or at least, you should have, but email seems to be broken for some people (me included, part of the time). If you like, drop me a line to my (non-acronymised) username at hotmail dotcom and I'll reply to that. Cheers, --YFB¿03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You removed a chunk of text. The text was actually approved by the author and comes from her web site! Tweak it is you like, but I don't think you should just delete it. Tony17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Tony
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It is a common courtesy to notify a person when you list them as evidence in an arbcom case. I found out through other means, but please ensure that all other participant know that they are involved. Peace. (H)01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies on that one, I meant nothing by that. I forgot that Doc had refrained from adding a number of people I had added initially. --badlydrawnjefftalk01:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I'm curious what you think about Vicki_Smith. To me this seems like a good test case for evaluating people's attitudes on biographical articles. I'm almost beginning to wonder if the whole BLP mess could be sorted by just saying that we want to be very conservative in use of primary sources on people. In other words, if a journalist goes and hunts down someone's birth certificate or court records, this might be usable in an article (altho we should still recognize that Wikipedia is not Wikinews). If a Wikipedia editors goes and hunts this stuff down, it should not be used in an article. Friday(talk)15:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I never thought I'd say "who cares" toward an article before, but...who cares? Journalists are interviewed about what they reported, whoda thunk it. As much as I'd love to see us have biographies on anyone who'd conceivably be looked up, this is currently silly. I think your standard may have a lot of merit, though. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I gotta go write this down- we agreed on something! Hmm, now I wonder if it'd be appropriate to have a "badlydrawnjeff says so" criterion for speedy deletion. Surely if you agree something is a delete, it could hardly be controversial. Friday(talk)16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-2007-05-15T22:40:00.000Z-Image:Comedy_ssu2.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-15T22:40:00.000Z-Image:Comedy_ssu2.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-16T15:41:00.000Z-Image:Judge_Dredd_promo_poster.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-16T15:41:00.000Z-Image:Judge_Dredd_promo_poster.jpg){kind=link}
