::::Coming from you is the height of lunacy. As I've noted before, there is no required process to request arbitration. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Coming from you is the height of lunacy. As I've noted before, there is no required process to request arbitration. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:28, 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. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 15:36, 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. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk: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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have a question about something I've done, read this first. If you don't understand it, then ask. If I remove your comment without warning, you're part of the problem, and need to shape up. That's all there is to it. --badlydrawnjefftalk21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Darvon cocktail
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Starting fires
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.]]
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.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Copyvio
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
User Page Deleted
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please don't make remarks directed toward individual editors regarding bodily functions considered generally impolite. Best wishes, Xoloz15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
New people not grokking Ignore All Rules (and a lot of other stuff besides)
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.
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)[reply]
Matt Young
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Subpage deletion
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
Yes - didn't realize it survived the delete, just added it as a relist and explained the matching username. Fujowpai21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (JS)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fair use rationale blitz !
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:Thecliqueharrison.jpg and others
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Book/movie images: no rationale - tagged for CSD I7
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Author?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
With that set-up...
...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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As requested
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Image licensing
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Mister.Manticore13:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Mister.Manticore14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
-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}
