Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:25, 18 July 2006

If I leave a message in your talk page, reply there, I'll keep it on my watchlist. If you leave a message here, I'll reply here. --badlydrawnjeff 15:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Archives

• /Archive1: All of 2005.
• /Archive2: January 2006 -> April 2006.
• /Archive3: May 2006 -> June 2006.

Something for your todo list? Macbeth (band)

AFD was closed as a deleted. I saw it as a repost on the CSD category, I removed the CSD because previous votes referred to the article as being a contentless substub. The repost has some meat to the article, but if its to survive an AFD it's still probably going to have to be cleaned up. Reads like a press release, and might actually be one. Note that if the heading is a redlink, it'll have been speedied. - Hahnchen 00:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was messy. It certainly meets basic requirements, but I've stubbed it and gave it some basic stats anyway. Thanks for the heads up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity! Redux 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A damn shame, too, considering how many falsehoods were uttered during the course of it and ignored. Ah well, should have expected it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It was perhaps unfortunate that a RfC was still ongoing. I found it encouraging that you had support from JzG, which shows that people can appreciate edits from someone with a different point of view. Looking at some previous debates, if we ever have a disagreement it may take a long time to conclude as I like resolving things. Stephen B Streater 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the problems really had nothing to do with the RfC - I actually expected more opposition BECAUSE of that. I'm more disturbed by people who outright lie, and then aren't questioned on it when it comes down to the final decision, but I'm not terribly surprised. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

At least all the edits are there for people to see. If it's any consolation, I think some of the opposers were genuine ;-) I had a look through some of your edits and could see frustration building up in your adversaries, but in the time I had available didn't come across anything devastating, I think the bureaucrat was right to close the way he did too. Perhaps you can take his advice - it looks like you'll only need to change marginally to succeed next time. Stephen B Streater 23:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there's certainly enough opposition that didn't come out of the woodwork for me to not be too fazed by it. But it's refreshing to know that my conduct and contributions are widely respected by members of the community who are in good standing, so I'm not letting myself get down about it. Maybe i'll give it another go in a few months. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do. You having buttons would make my editing go more smoothly, and that is my main concern when doing RfAs. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bummer. Please don't take it personally - like I said before, some people are not willing to separate philosophical disagreements from te issue of fitness to perform janitorial work. Give it time, you will be promoted. I thought many of the Oppose votes unnecessarily harsh, and many appeared to be based on a false perception (votign keep does not mean you will be any more or less likely to block a tendentious editor). I am disappointed your RFA failed, I am also disappointed that Brian Crawford saw it as symptomatic of some problem with WP. I simply don't understand how giving the mop to poeple who are inclusionist can have a downside. Maybe I'm the one with a distorted viewpoint, who knows. Just zis Guy you know? 23:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not the least bit discouraged by the result - I expected different opposers who never showed up, and I'm viewed overwhelmingly positively by those in the community in good standing. I'm not too concerned, I understand completely why it worked out the way it did. Thanks for the attempt, though, maybe round 2 will go better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I voted against you, not because I think you are a bad person, but because of the controversy surrounding you - because you are an individual. The outspoken maverick is not supposed to become the neutral admin! The quiet dull people who can see things both ways are the ones who should become admins. The people with an opinion are the ones who shake and shout and make sure that alternative views are heard. Do you really want to stiffle your opinions just to get hold of a button that you don't actually need? This admin proposal was like trying to get a Top Gun into a desk job. SilkTork 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should the outspoken maverick not become the admin? Many admins are decidedly not clones. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am not talking clone - I'm talking balanced. Seeing both sides of the argument. As far as I see it, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, the admin role is mainly to make balanced decisions on events in Wiki - like AfD, disputes, etc. Admins do not decide policy or the direction of Wiki - that is for the body of Wikipedians. And when policy is being created people with views need to be heard. The admin function at such a point is to count the beans, not to materially influence the decision. A person who wants their views and opinions to be heard and felt would need to stand back so much from doing admin functions that there would be no point in having the admin role. SilkTork 13:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then. I never thought people actually bought into that bizarro "how to become a Misplaced Pages admin by not rocking the boat" document, but there you have it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If SilkTork's is a true representation opf what admins are supposed to do, then most of us will have to stand down. Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you had won would you be able to maintain a neutral pov about Afd, Cfd, Tfd your political pov, I do not think so. It all passes the way it should no. You did not need it anyway. Go away little fry cook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solange Rey (talk • contribs)

Of course I could, and plenty of other people do, as well. Hell, a good look at my contributions would have borne that out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No consensus

Really sucks. I think you'd have done a good service to balance the deletionists among us -- Samir धर्म 06:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Armando/Daily Kos RFM

I am filing an RFM regarding our interactions. You are one of three named parties. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have backed out of meditation due to Silensor's demonstration of transparent bad faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet again with the personal attacks. Surprise, surprise. "Can a persons full name be included if it has been published by 3 different major media sources which are reliable" is something which should be mediated, I am truly sorry you disagree. Silensor 17:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's part of mediation, though - he feels that it's a point of contention. If you disagree, that's fine, and you can make that clear in the mediation, but there's got to be some give and take if you actually want to see this resolved. Please reconsider. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that he is attempting to advance his arguments through the initiation process - I feel that this demonstrates he intends to game the system throughout. Not interested. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel News Agency

Hi Jeff. I think you're wrong on this one; Leyden is a skilled self-publicist, all the purported sources seem to track back to him (your first link, for example, was to his own site). I can't see any credible evidence that INA is anything other than a one-man propaganda mouthpiece, and I certainly see no sign it's syndicated in any "real" media (as the likes of Reuters are). Leyden is also obnoxious towards Misplaced Pages since his vanity article was deleted - not in itself evidence of much other than that in my experience people who are genuinely important realise that having a Misplaced Pages article does not validate their existence in any way and simply don't care, the ones who kick up a stink are usually the ones for whom vanity is a way of life. Most of the argumentation and much of the editing comes from known or suspected soickpuppets of a single user who may or may not be Leyden.

If you can find an example of, say, The Times crediting INA as a source I'd be pleased to hear of it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I could be, but absent evidence to the contrary that this guy's just a fluke or nut or whatever - and given that much of the opposition from higher-ups seems to be because of his attitude toward WP - I see no reason to rush to delete it at this point. I'd much rather have the article here and deal with those issues in article where we can monitor and control it as opposed to the constant back and forth of deleting and restoring and appeals and whatever else. A little inconsistent of me? Perhaps, but is anything as it seems with this one at this point? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

His attitude to WP springs from the dleetions, not vice-cersa, as I see it. Anyway, as ever we can disagree in a civilised manner :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's put it this way, I have no real complaints about where it ends up, but it'd be nice to have actual consensus as opposed to unilateral motions if we're going to delete it. It's tough for folks to complain if things are done properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Angela Beesley AfD

Reopened per your request. Kimchi.sg 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

General disruption.

I'm concerned that because you were unable to get Misplaced Pages:Snowball clause deleted that you have decided to, effectively, crap on the page. Although the input from people with contrasting views is always welcome, you have gone far beyond what I would normally consider disruptive behavior. Please discontinue behaving in this manner and try to focus on being constructive rather than disruptive and destructive. --Gmaxwell 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. I've actually been very firm about my beliefs on the page before I attempted to delete it, and I will continue to oppose it at every turn. If you think that's disruption, you have the right to your opinion, but the day opposing a meaningless essay that promotes ignoring long-standing process come to via consensus becomes disruptive, there's bigger problems at hand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"you have decided to, effectively, crap on the page." "you have gone far beyond what I would normally consider disruptive behavior." Can't say I am surprised.--8bitJake 04:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

An idea

Hey there. You probably don't know who I am, but I have seen you around AfD a lot and you seem to hold similar ideals to mine in that regard. Today I rewrote an article that was up for deletion, Pulp noir, and hence gained several keep votes. It wasn't the first time I've done this, and I realized that I enjoy it more than anything else I do on Misplaced Pages. I have made several "saves" of articles that needed to be kept in my opinion, but would have been deleted had someone not stepped in.

My idea is this - what do you think of an organized project for this activity? I'm not sure if it would be something as formal as a WikiProject, and certainly not as informal as snarking, but maybe something in the middle. An Article Saving Cabal?  :) It would be important for it to be constructive, not malicious or disruptive.. but what do you think? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's crossed my mind, for sure, but I'm not sure how appreciated it would be, constructive or not. What do you have in mind specifically? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right - and it only just crossed my mind and I thought I might bounce it off you. I just think a lot about AfD, and some of its problems, and try to think of ways to address them. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

myg0t

Hi, I noticed you had some history reguarding the myg0t article. Well, the article is up for DrV, and I ask that you post your thoughts on whether or not it should be undeleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t - thanks, cacophony 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your next RfA...

I was going to ask if you wanted to be nommed for adminship, but I saw that you've just had one that failed. That's a darn shame, as, in my humble opinion, you would make a fine admin, and could really help this project with a mop firmly pressed in your hand ;) Next time you're up for it, I'll vote a very very strong support.

Good luck 'till then. Thε Halo 01:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that advance thumbs-up! It'll be a few months before I even bother considering the wringer again, but I appreciate it! --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!

Blogs as sources

Since you participated in the discussion I'd like to point you to this newly created page Misplaced Pages:Guidelines_for_Blog_Citation to further continue the discussion we started over at WP:RS.--Crossmr 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll drop in shortly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

External link

The external link to Encyclopedia Dramatica goes to their mainpage, which has a personal attack article posted. Misplaced Pages does not support this. I have every right to defend myself from any and all personal attacks. I removed the PNG image from the mainpage and this is no different. We are not going to promote that website in this forum, especially so long as they are engaged in personal attacks on ANY wikipedian on the page we must link to. If you don't understand this basic fact, then you are in the wrong forum.--MONGO 23:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of the PNG image was poor form, and the link is completely within reason with our external linking policy. I don't disagree with your being upset, but you're way overreacting over it and only making it worse for yourself in the process, both with the article in question and with users here. I don't want to see that happen, as you've been an otherwise good guy in my experience prior to this episode. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Msinside.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Msinside.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambig pages

Regarding your edit to Daylight (disambiguation), note that the Manual of Style prescribes that disambiguation pages should not contain links, other than those required for disambiguation. Check out the MoS for other special "rules" for formatting these special pages.--Srleffler 03:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, then. I had seen it before, so...--badlydrawnjeff talk 10:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting timing?

Lapsed eh? .--MONGO 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Check my contribs if you don't buy it. I hadn't done any serious editing of my userpage in a month, interesting timing it really wasn't, but given your approach this week, I don't expect you to believe me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)