User talk:Bdj

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)[reply]

/Archive1: All of 2005.

Please be aware you've reverted the Flint/Davison paragraph three times within 24 hours. If you do it again, you'll break the Three-revert rule and most likely be blocked for a period of time. AlistairMcMillan 03:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the meaningless warning. Same to you, since you wasted your time and mine here. --badlydrawnjeff 03:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you voted against the adminship of William M Connolly. I reviewed said candidate's actions on the Cold Fusion article and determined them to indeed be very biased and uncivil. I haven't looked at WC's actions on the aetherometry article yet though. The vast support for WC is truly disturbing. I am a candidate for the arbitration council. William M Connolly is precisely the type of biased and uncivil person that I would fight against.

I request that you review my candidate statement and questions at: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/LawAndOrder , and consider voting for me, though only if you have suffrage for arbitration committee elections (registered before 9/30/2005, and have over 150 edits before 1/9/2006). The votes are vastly against me, so I will not win, but I have very few support votes, so voting for me will at least show that I (who is on your side) am less of a pariah. LawAndOrder 21:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually rather shocked myself that he's getting this much support. I think SEWilco put the sour taste into a lot of people's mouths, but nominating WMC is like nominating me. I dunno. I'll take a look at your notes (I don't vote often in these, as you can tell), but no promises. --badlydrawnjeff 21:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, cool to see another fan, and especially one not local. Yeah, I've been putting off writing the article for an eternity too, but I finally got around to it. Feel free to expand! Haakon 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I actually heard of them before "Happy Happy Happy" got a stateside release. I wish they hadn't broken up, but what can you do, right? --badlydrawnjeff 19:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff,

A colleague and I are working on a Boston Globe story about wikipedia, and we are looking for a few local folks -- we have talked to several already -- who like to contribute and have views about the project. Will you call me at xxx xxx-xxxx? Or you could also email me at (e-mail removed)@globe.com if you want to suggest a number where and time when I could call you. I'm thinking of a short chat on the phone. Also, it's possible that we would want to take your picture.

Thanks so much,

(name removed)

Contacted privately. --badlydrawnjeff 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your decision at AfD, I'm fairly certain the "411" group in the article is entirely male, and from California. You may wish to take another look :D. — TheKMan^talk 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let my vote reflect that. --badlydrawnjeff 15:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polkacide.) I agree that sometimes articles get deleted that shouldn't and it sucks when that happens. But consider how much time is wasted when a hundred people have to read an AFD and comment on it over a period of 5 days, just for the article to be deleted. Those people could have spent time creating other articles. I don't think this is a "deletionism vs inclusionism" issue; it is a "how do you spend your time most efficiently" issue. It's more efficient to delete and undelete the mistakes than be ultra-conservative. In Computer Science there is a maxim: "it is easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission". Cheers —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-27 22:15Z

Well, I'm still convinced the most efficient way to do it is to, you know, not nominate notable articles for deletion. Instead of just tagging something AfD, people should take a minute to see if they can improve it. Sadly... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that I've nominated a lot of junky bands for deletion lately. I don't think it's cool that I have to weed through a zillion junky bands that have less notability than people in my neighborhood just to get to bands that are actually worthwhile. And I'll continue to "clean up". Before you get to the point of blindly voting Keep on every one of my Afd's (it looks like you never vote to delete any music bands ever), take a look through my contributions and see how many bands I've saved by adding discographies and other hints at notability and how many others I've tried to start improving by tagging as uncat and unsourced, etc. Afd is not as evil a thing as you make it out to be. If we could get to a point where every band was clearly above a certain line, we wouldn't need to delete any others and Wikipedia wouldn't have the feel of a giant electronic one-cent used-CD store anymore. Just my two cents... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on trolling your nominations, I have no time or interest for games to make a point nor could I possibly track them down and do research on them legitimately if I wanted to. I have major issues with a lot of band nominations, and I find a lot of AfD nominations for bands to be extremely lazy. If you're not part of that group, good, but there's a religious adherence to WP:MUSIC that is somewhat disturbing, and the amount you've done lately makes me question it. I'm glad you're attempting to improve some of them, though, that's more than we can say about other folks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there are plenty of bands that clearly don't make WP:MUSIC that I pass over because they seem to be starting out and have some following. As far as how appropriate WP:MUSIC is itself, I'll confess to not having data to back it up - I think it was established long before I got here. If I wanted to raise the issue of things like the definition of "major label", I could tie up Afd forever on black metal bands alone - but I'm more interested in getting rid of obvious crap (like a death metal band called Paracoccidioidomicosisproctitissarcomucosis — please). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, I'd be all for discarding Afd's for WP:MUSIC if we could somehow segregate the smaller less notable bands away from all the more popular bands. I realize that people - such as yourself I assume - like seeing lists of every band ever and I don't have a problem with that. But I don't personally like such lists and get frustrated when they are blindly mixed in with the bands that have already made a name for themselves. If we had categories like Category:Less-notable independent bands, I'd be all for it. I don't think many others here would agree though... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note to say nice work saving Reservoir Songs from deletion. --Muchness 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Color me shocked that Crooked Fingers didn't have an article. If you know anything more about them, please help! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help but I don't know much about them, I'm more of an Archers fan. --Muchness 04:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on Encyclopedia Dramatica! I've moved the discussion, which I do as-and-when I find them. Eventually the idea is that all currently-referenced discussions should be at AfD…, and we can maybe remove some of those VfD… redirects, but it's a long-term and very slow project. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk AfD_template_change" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I didn't even realize it was good form to move the project pages like that, or I would have done it myself. I'll keep it in mind for the future if your project crosses my watchlist again. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry 'bout the mix-up. Thanks for the link. Tytrain 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, and for welcoming me to the fold of administrators. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise and blocked a vandal (after I said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem sir! Good luck to you! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is kinda getting beyond the scope of the talk page... Yeah, this is how I tend to close AfDs, but honestly this was a very borderline case between "keep" or "no consensus". I was trying to err on the side of caution. I realize it might be seen as making an article more likely to get nominated again... so I'll take your comment into consideration in the future.

If it makes you feel any better, the one time a decision of mine has ended up on WP:DRV it was because someone wanted me to say "no consensus" when I'd said "keep". So you're never going to please everyone... --W.marsh 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'm really not that bothered by it. I'm on AfD a lot myself, and sometimes some clarity on whether a article is closed one way or the other makes a difference later, that's all. Seriously not that big a deal. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I figured this would end up at deletion review however it was closed, and if you'd like to take it there I encourage you to do so. I'd be interested in the results. I did examine the prior keep vote, though a prior AfD does not alter the guidelines or criteria used in closing any subsequent AfDs. However, I do personally feel that later AfDs probably should bear a slightly higher "burden of proof" if they are to succeed, so this was one variable that pulled me in the direction of a "no consensus" judgment. As for verifiability, clearly the existence of the site and its various features are verifiable, but that's not the issue. What are sorely lacking are reliable secondary sources that characterize and describe LJ Drama. Without those, the article's prospects were very poor, and its potential scope extremely narrow. Regardless, the AfD met my typical definition of a supermajority for delete (normally I look for 66% of all good faith, reasoned votes), and I didn't find adequately extenuating circumstances to outweigh that supermajority. Babajobu 05:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering on what basis you think the group is notable if the number of fans, downloads, et. al are yet to be verified, and nerdcore has been around for almost a decade?--Urthogie 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the arguments of the people above. WP:MUSIC is a guideline with a lot of flaws and I see no reason to see an article that appears to come close enough to notability to stick around. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats my question though, lets forget about WP:MUSIC for a bit, my question remains: what does make it notable.--Urthogie 15:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GSW, the amount of downloads, the amount of internet attention. Have you read the other comments yet? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. The amount of downloads is not a verified number, the amount of internet attention is lesser than many other deleted web memes. That just leaves GSW. Every group that comes out of GSW's web page can be an article?--Urthogie 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many (most?) of the web memes that were deleted shouldn't have been due to WP:WEB being changed into something really horrible. And yes, if something's covered by GSW, I'd likely vote keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A blog about gaming seems barely appliable to gaming, let alone music.--Urthogie 17:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We respectfully disagree on that note. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess so. By the way, It'd be great if you'd help make WP:MUSIC better.--Urthogie 17:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried. There are a lot of deletionist forces who seem to equate indie band with garage band which is frustrating. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What indie bands shouldnt be kept, in your opinion?--Urthogie 17:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One's with absolutely no attention, locally or nationally. If they do a regional tour and create a few albums, it shows they've been able to expand past their locality, and that's more than good enough for me. The touring requirement is hell for many indie bands, there's no consistent idea as to what's a worthy label to make an adequate guideline, and the "major music magazine" requirement knocks off niche-magazines and technically doesn't allow things like newspaper coverage, which is dead wrong. I'd keep the majority of bands that can demonstrate that they've done more than rehearsed and played locally, or that have shown an effort to gain expanded fame (such as the band who you originally came here for). --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they haven't sold a single album, or even made a single physical album, so I don'ts ee how they're even pursuing fame-- it seems like theyre pursuing internet notoriety more than anything else.--Urthogie 20:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I guess we have a much different view of the encyclopedia. What led you to being so inclusive with articles?--Urthogie 21:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly so many worthwhile articles being deleted. It's kinda pointless to create guidelines, ignore them for some articles, and then make them too strict for other worthy articles. It's not only trying to be a typical encyclopedia, but trying to be something more, that whole "sum of knowledge" thing. So I approach articles with one question: "Why should this article be here?" If I can't make a good rationalization as to why (and there are very few things that don't have a legitimate answer to that question), then it's probably not worth having. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the sum of all knowledge concept overly idealistic? I mean, how can you learn anything when flooded with so much information?--Urthogie 09:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Isn't idealism why we're here? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess so. Different ideals though.--Urthogie 14:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I did indeed find revisions before the vandalism. I have restored the page and reverted the vandlaism. I apologize for any inconvenience. That particular vandal was creating a lot of nonsense articles so I guess I just assumed that this was one, but I will remember to be more careful. Academic Challenger 03:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No inconvienience, sometimes the mop gets shaky, no biggie. Thanks for the fix. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Too often, people will go there, see a band, and without thinking or researching, say "Yup, doesn't look notable, ooh WP:MUSIC, delete."' -I couldn't agree more. :) Keep up the great work! Madangry 20:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fighting the good fight yourself! Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your bold edit of this page. I was the one who prodded it, but I certainly don't mind your edit. While I didn't think it likely that someone would type out the extra word, redirects are cheap and maybe it'll help a few people in the future. Thanks again, and keep up the good work! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm running behind on the paperwork for DRV. This was going to be a note to let you know that I'd brought it back, but you've already spotted that. -Splash^talk 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Bar/None Records Mark Wilson (politician) Curl Up and Die Chitra indica Merge Records Gamble Everything For Love Schandmaul Reproductive rights Pro-Pain A Hard Road Skirgaila Advocacy journalism Midway Airport (British Columbia) Darcy Burner Strange Currencies Joe Conason Paul Berendt Schloà Artstetten Marc Maron

Cleanup Hardball with Chris Matthews A Distant Shore For Nancy ('Cos It Already Is) Merge Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter Science fiction Western Attribution (journalism) Add Sources Mohammad bin Sulayem Alley catting Marcy Kaptur Wikify Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office The Republican Noise Machine John Barnes (author) Expand Coingate Myth of Er Gagaku (album)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 14:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD for Popaganda!!! is not based on notability, as you point out it is a notable band. But the album is not yet released and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In an industry as unstable as the music business, an album doesn't exist untill it's on the shelves. Ifnord 21:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So in your mind, any album not currently on the shelves today shouldn't be here? I'll note from the policy that you note (and I agree with!): "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one read the article that's used as a source then one would see the band isn't even sure about the title. That's the problem with crystal ballism, what if the album changes name (as appears possible, if not likely, from the reference)? An encyclopedia is for what is - not what may be. Ifnord 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to reference their Myspace blog as a reliable source, but that's simply what the move button is for. It's obvious you're not going to come around on this, so it's worthless to keep going in circles on this, but I'd hope you'd reconsider. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as a (CSD G1) speedy.--Dakota ~ ° 05:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider reversing that? It wasn't patent nonsense at all, but a well-documented (at least in the media) gaffe by a Presidential candidate. I noticed it when a redirect to it went up for prod, and there's no reason why there shouldn't have been media references linked within. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to work on it? It was an obscure short context article and I don't see too much expansion potential. But if you want to want to work on it ok.--Dakota ~ ° 05:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure how "obscure" or "short context" a notable political gaffe that was covered in a variety of media is, but I'll be glad to try my hand at expansion further. Regardless of what it was, it certainly wasn't a speedy candidate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will take me a few. I hope you can improve it.--Dakota ~ ° 05:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's restored. --Dakota ~ ° 06:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the talk page. It is not in my deletion log. I believe it was empty.--Dakota ~ ° 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the deletion log: 19:45, 15 March 2006 DakotaKahn deleted "Talk:Manny Ortez" (content was: '{{db}}' discussion page of a deleted article). I'm just not sure if there's anything there that's useful. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be late late getting back. Seems I'm not getting new message notices as I should. I missed it in the log on my look. Here it is the only edit beyond listing the db is this very colorful comment which is (Vandalism)[1] --Dakota ~ ° 20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. Thanks for checking up on it for me. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing your approach to the Joseph Sobran article, I thought I would ask you to lend your expertise at LewRockwell.com, Lew Rockwell, and Tom G. Palmer. Hey, if you're good at conflict resolution you should really love these! In all seriousness, though, thanks for pitching in at the Sobran article! Cheers, Dick Clark 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll do what I can, no promises though. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, of course. Thanks, Dick Clark 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty tuff words there at the Joe Sobran talk page....— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaDreamlings (talk • contribs)

Huh? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take the charge of vandalism very seriously. You have been distorting the facts on the LewRockwell.com page. It's easy to find small exerpts to back up a certain POV, but the fact is that the IHR is a group which argues that the Holocaust was conducted on far lesser scale than we currently consider it to have occured at, and IHR also argues that the Holocaust wasn't meant to exterminate Jews but only to put them into camps. Sobran's comments about Jews, found in http://www.marwenmedia.com/articles_images/SobranJewishFaction.html make it clear he is an anti-semite. Please do not distort these facts anymore.

TheDookieMan 22:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan[reply]