![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, just telling you that I opened a strawpoll on this proposal at WT:AI. I proposed a poll earlier and no one seemed to object. I hope you don't mind - probably I should have asked you specifically first (as it's your proposal originally) prior to opening the poll. My own vote is Neutral, as I can see both advantages and disadvantages to the proposal compared to WP:N. Wal ton Vivat Regina! 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Have a wonderful honeymoon. Durova Charge! 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I wish you two the best of luck and happiness!
>Radiant< 08:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Another congratulation for the pile: Good luck with the rest of your life, Jeff. Enjoy your time off, and try not to even think about us for the rest of the week. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We may disagree a lot, but congratulations and best of luck! Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
it was a great ceremony and honeymoon, I'll post a link to pictures soon. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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. Ralbot 04:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I have seen you in many afd debates, and in WP:MUSIC, WP:BK, WP:N, and so forth. From what I've seen so far, you are one of the Wikipedians that I deeply respect. You fight for what you believe for, and you don't let the politics of others get in the way of your judgment. That being said, you probably already know of a merger proposal of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS being merged into one article WP:ATT. Since this is huge, I think it would be good if you would weigh your thoughts in on the discussion at WP:ATT/P. Even if your neutral on the debate, you should add your thoughts and opinions under the neutral column, it might add more light to the debate. Thanks -- RiseRobotRise 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thank you for bringing The Turk to FA status. Mr. Barnstar 07:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
Not that you don't have better things to be doing right now, but if you get back in the next 13 hours, take a look. Congrats! :-D And on getting married, while I'm at it. Milto LOL pia 10:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You are very wrong on this and acting like a spoiled child. Save your energy for constructive efforts to compromise. -- Kevin Murray 03:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, A user has started off creating a series of stubs on individual Gary Numan songs. I get the impression that you know a lot more about music than I do. I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether it would be possible to properly source these stubs under the current rules and if so, where we could go to do this. Youy can see what I'm on about here. Thanks, oh and I believe congratulations are in order as well. -- Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment about my contributions. It really meant a lot. Danny 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
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. Ralbot 07:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why MySpace Events was deleted it has more than enough of everything to be a valid article.... Martini833 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think people are thiniking that List was to recreate Secert Shows when it was just an aid for MySpace Events. It was not another attempt at it as others had said. I only made it when people complained that the list on MySpace Events was too long that i made list so thts why i dont think it shoud be deleted its just another list out of the many lists on Wikipedia. And the ad tone and sources were all taken care of (more than necessary) so i dont see why anyone is complaining (much less deleting it)! Martini833 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jeff, welcome back. I was wondering if you could join the latest discussions on this page? There's talk now of combining this page and Wikipedia:Straw polls into one page called Wikipedia:Polling. Perhaps you could express your views on this idea? Thanks. ( → Netscott) 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, deleted again. - Denny ( talk) 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny ( talk) 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed you removed the prod from this page, as it has survived an AfD before. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think that previous AfDs granted immunity from later prods? There might be legitimate reasons to keep the article, but a 12-month-old AfD result doesn't seem like one of them. Can you find some policy that supports your position? (Oh, and I re-nominated the page at AfD, in case you're curious.) - Chardish 07:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment about the Wales co-founder nonsense over at the Essay article. In my opinion, this issue is THE most important one since if wikipedia can't even keep is founding straight, then WHAT article is really safe from this type of bastardization? Thanks again! -- Tom 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I got deletion-happy and baleeted the DRV page you requested so that you may start fresh. The Vile Dark Lord of Verifiability 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I enjoy finding sources for potentially-notable articles (like this one and the one on which we just interacted), so let me know if you ever need help on that sort of thing (especially if, as you mentioned, the Spanish-language barrier becomes an issue). JavaTenor 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi jeff—regarding Mom and Dad, copyediting requests have really picked up lately, so I can't guarantee anything. I'll keep it on my list though, and if no one else has got to it by then, I'll take a look! – Outriggr § 07:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Sorry, more of the anti-process crowd showed up to be counted. Truth be told, I can't entirely ignore the idea that the application of IAR to an "unsourced suicide method" is reasonable. Personally, I disagree with that view. As a DRV closer, though, I must acknowledge that it had greater support; it isn't so plainly wrong that I'm going to go out on a limb and reverse, despite its greater support. Of course, anyone is welcome to repost the information with sources. WP is not censored for the protection of minors, or suicidal people.
I think the use of IAR "because people might die!" is foolish, but it is one of the more rational uses of our "policy" (as opposed to, say, "because I don't like the content!") If the thing had been sourced, I probably would have ignored the head-count and relisted (of course, were it sourced, the head-count would have been different.) It didn't, though; per Uncle G, such sources don't seem to exist. I can't over-rule a majority on that basis, though I am most certainly not happy with the deletion log. Apologies, Xoloz 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments on User talk:Samuel Blanning. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Thank you for taking process seriously.
You clearly have a lot more experience with Wikipedia from start to finish than I do/can have. I am a process/policy idealist (as is probably already clear to you from what you may have read of my comments on DRV).
I've asked User:Xoloz for eir thoughts, but do you also have any suggestions on what kinds of measures in-Wikimedia can be taken to try to defuse the bloc's power in majorities? Clearly Wikimedia was founded with an eye toward consensus, but just as clearly, that's starting to be reinterpreted as voting majority. Do you know if there is anything that can be done by a relative newbie to try to refocus us back on meaningful consensus?
It seems like this has been a cause for you too in the long-run. I'm here to lend a hand/draw fire if need be. Please let me know if you want my help, or if you have any suggestions for me to strike out on my own. Thanks. -- MalcolmGin 16:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocs? That's interesting to me. Do you want people to follow process at all times, do you want them to follow consensus at all times, or do you want them to follow the majority at all times? These overlap, and are actually (theoretically) supposed to be identical, but in reality they differ subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly. -- Kim Bruning 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
So having mentioned roughly the groups that I know about... who is the "anti-process bloc". Are they some set of the blocs mentioned, or is it some different/new bloc? And where are they active? -- Kim Bruning 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps what IAR is trying to say is that Wikipedia is (supposed to be) an Adhocracy? -- Kim Bruning 23:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the big problem with policy and procedure is when they rust. Famously, during the Weimar republic era, the German army started devolving power to officers and soldiers in the field. Instead of rigorous procedure, people were allowed to take responsibility, act on their own, and make decisions on the spot in the field, provided their actions helped the entire war effort forward. When war came, the German army proved itself to be th most effective fighting force in the field, literally sending other (then) superpowers running. During world war two, the Germans were eventually subdued by a combination of superior numbers of their enemies, and party bureaucracy eroding their effectiveness from within.
A similar trend is also found in the us armed forces. During WWII, American adaptability allowed them to eventually slow and stop the Japanese advance in the pacific, but people were already starting to add layers of bureaucracy. By the time of Vietnam, it was in large part this bureaucracy which crippled the ability of the us army to efficiently wage war. After that defeat, the generals licked their wounds, learned their lessons, and evolved the armbed forces back away from bureaucracy, back towards what Alvin Toffler calls adhocracy, putting responsibility and decision making back in the hands of the mechanics, pilots, and soldiers on the ground. By the time of the Gulf War in 1991, Desert Storm sent the Iraqis sprawling. With the current US administration, bureaucracy is creeping back into operations, and you can see reduced effectiveness of the US armed forces as a result.
I've also seen some bureaucratic systems myself. Most recently I was detached to $large_company, to a division where people had procedures for everything. Sure, it was a quiet, safe environment to work in, where people hoped to stay until their pensions came around. But the main company was not so pleased with that division, since efficiency was not so high, and reactiveness to new situations was very low. So just as I was leaving, the main company announced that they were going to (effectively) lay off the entire work-force and rebuild the division from scratch.
So my view of bureaucratic systems is that they are symptomatic of large organizations with too much fat.
People on wikipedia think it's ok to waste huge swaths of volunteer time. I don't think so. In every hour that someone donates to wikipedia, they could have also been out working and earning $50-$100, so that's what an hour of work is worth, donated to us.
Like any other charity, we shouldn't throw that time/money away on endless "paper"work. We should use it to advance our mission. And our mission is to provide the world with an encyclopedia. :-)
So the question I work on every day is not: "How do we get people to follow procedures". My question is "How do we get the procedures out of people's faces, so that they can write that encyclopedia".
If we have to have procedures for things, let's teach the computers how to do those tasks, computers are great for following procedures. And then we should let Humans work in ways that they do best: let them use their Experience and Creativity.
-- Kim Bruning 14:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am interested in helping you bring back MySpace Events. If you would like yoou could look into another myspace event called the list myspace.com/thelist. Also me, you, and vendetta (from the deletion review) could make this article top notch. Contact him please and refer him to your talk page. Thanks Martini833 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Kla'quot has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Kla'quot 05:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this guy likes you almost as much as he likes me... [1]-- MONGO 07:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've seen several edit wars recently related to {{ pnc}}. If that template causes so much trouble, perhaps it ought to hit the bitbucket? >Radiant< 12:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Djmckee1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
It says on your userpage that you would like PROD and CSK to be expanded. Could you give me a brief idea of what you had in mind? >Radiant< 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Carabinieri 18:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jeff. So you don't think it's a good idea to give non-notable people an alternative when they are flagged for deletion?
I have made soem comments on your "Field guide to proper speedy deletion". It looks like a good idea to me, in general. DES (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 16 | 16 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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. Ralbot 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
--`' mikka 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think a high school basketball coach is really so important that we need an article about him?-- eskimospy (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Not that I'm challenging your vote or anything, but you seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to get across when it comes to A7 and deletion of content. I certainly wouldn't speedy-delete things on my own authority if there was any question as to their deletability; I'd send them to AfD and let the community decide, as per process. I was only trying to clarify to some of the other users that I wouldn't practise "process wonkery" either. Unfortunately I seem to have inadvertently contradicted myself, and am now drawing opposes from both inclusionists and deletionists. Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to oppose, but I just don't want you to think I'd go around indiscriminately deleting content. Anyway, I would have thought you'd be quite familiar with my deletion/inclusion stance (which is very middle-of-the-road) from our discussions on policy. Wal ton Vivat Regina! 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems there is no consensus for deleting, renaming or rewording the IAR policy. What's left to be done is try and keep an open eye on the way this policy is used in practice. I'm considering starting an "IAR Watch" project whose mission is to do just that. Would you be interested in joining such a project? Itayb 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You know what, forget about it. I spend too much time in Wikipedia already, mostly grinding water. I think what i really need is a prolonged WikiBreak. So long. :) Itayb 23:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I never knew that albums weren't speediable — can you explain why, cause I think I'm missin' something here-— arf! 05:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I do my best. I really try hard to avoid "no consensus" closes when it's at all possible, especially in a heavy debate like that. I think a lot of other admins might have closed the debate that way... which would lead to the same result (not deletion) but which would also leave the issue unresolved. Mango juice talk 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been wondering some time about the issue of the consensus of a small population overriding the consensus of something larger--policy, guidelines, etc.
This came up for me recently when two gaming articles changed their names. They had been using English translations, and were now using transliterated names for titles. One got changed back per WP:ENGLISH. The other did not.
The prposed move to move Dōbutsu no Mori (film) back to Animal Forest (film) failed, with a 2/2 split. The archived discussion is located here--it's long, but the final opinions of the two opposers are as followers.
"That would work in your favor if I agreed with the guideline. But I don't. To assume that any entity at Nintendo would use it is original research and I won't encourage that."
"Nintendo has never once said that the English title of this movie could be Animal Forest."'
"The only official release of this film is under "Dōbutsu no Mori". It was never released as "Animal Forest", nor is this specific film ever referred to as that in official sources."
These two opinions completey ignore WP:ENGLISH guidelines--in fact, the first person admits that they don't agree with the guidelines.
This and other moves and Afds have had me thinking a lot recently. These discussions net a very small pool. If one person votes to follow __ policy, and ten people vote the other way, without citing policy or guidelines or even without explaining why the first persons policy doesn't apply--then the move or deletion or whatever shouldn't be closed in the favour of the 11 who showed up, but in favour of the community consensus that already exists within the policy or guideline that that one person cited. I'm seeing a lot of moves and closing discussions where people won or could have won without citing any policy, and against the people who did cite policy, because they either disagreed with the policy in question or because they just didn't like whatever was at stake.
Which means I think we should make some changes to the consensus policy. But wouldn't IAR be useful in these cases? Unless I'm mistaken, the rules say to close in favor of whoever shows up, even if there is overriding consensus elsewhere. But that doesn't benefit Wikipedia--that just makes sure that policies and guidelines are ignored, and it doesn't benefit what consensus really means either.
I wouldn't just close in the favour of minority and say--IAR hahahah! But I'd say ignoring closing rules per IAR as no valid objections to simply policy ____ were made.
What do you think of that?
Btw, it's not possible to search for edit summaries is it? Because usage of IAR in edit summaries would really give a good understanding of if IAR was used for more than vandalism excusing and how. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just left a note on the talk page of WP:BK. Incidentally, I happened to go there because I was checking your contribs to see if you were around. Not that I care deeply about the whole thing but I was coming here to ask you to reconsider your oppose on Walton Monarchist's RfA which I believe came from a simple misunderstanding of his actual position on speedy deletion. (A position, I might add, that's probably much closer to yours than mine.) Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you're almost symbolic of oddball article deletion (oddball articles, not oddball ppl), what're your views on "common word" afds? I just started one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quite - and was curious. Feel free to ignore this though if you're, like, busy, or... whatever ^_^ Milto LOL pia 05:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Please help me check the contribs of User:Owski - he/she/it tagged a bunch of legit software articles as "db-spam" and lemmings just clicked delete, without actually checking the articles. I've blocked him but I'm trying to make sure the legit stuff gets restored. Thanks. FCYTravis 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on the AfD page for this book. I was happy to establish the notability of the book but I am perplexed by some the other comments left there and would appreciate your advice on how I might improve the article further. The comments I refer to are:
Thank you for your time, if you are able to donate some to this. If not, thank you for your previous contributions. -- Lesley Fairbairn 08:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've voted Support on your RfA, obviously. However, you might have been better-advised to wait a little while - yesterday I was thinking of nominating you myself, since I just found out you weren't already an admin. (I always assumed you were one already.) The problem is that, as a self-nominee who's well-known for your strong views on policy, you're going to draw knee-jerk opposes from the deletionist wing. If you'd been nominated by a third party, your candidacy would be safer in that respect. I hope your RfA succeeds, but if it doesn't, wait a few months and I'll nominate you for another attempt. Wal ton Vivat Regina! 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've got my fingers crossed for you, Jeff. A Train talk 19:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Here it is. -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
..or maybe you'll even feel like answering or maybe it will annoy you (but hopefully not). But I thought of a question for you, but I'm asking here instead of on your RFA. Where in the rules does it say you're allowed to request limited adminship? Aren't you playing a bit fast and loose with proper procedures? It seems unlike you. :) Friday (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was half-joking. But I had a half-serious point in there too. If there were two of you, and one of you invented a new procedure for limited adminship, the other one of you would have objected to it as being out of process. I'd thought I'd unerstood your stance, but this was really out of left field. To me it seems like you're simultaneously against anyone else "applying IAR" but you're perfectly happy to do it yourself? Bizarre. Friday (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Reposting it here, I'd prefer people not post with a "you'll get 'em next time" message or whatever - I'm not the least bit discouraged as much as disappointed in the usual suspects. It was an attempt at something different, and it didn't work - we move on. Here's the statement I left at the RfA talk page:
I had an inkling this wouldn't work regardless - i figured that the typical people would come out and oppose, and I had very few surprises through the first thirty or so. What I didn't expect was a repeat of the dishonesty that I received the first time around, and combine that with the fact that someone on Wikitruth decided to spoof my name is being held against me makes it fairly clear that I'm incapable of getting a fair hearing here, so I'm out. No need to distract myself from other, more important things at this point. Perhaps if I had kept going and been a little more aggressive about challenging the worst of it, I possibly could have made up the gap over the course of the week, but I'll pass, it's an effort I don't want to make for an outcome I had to talk myself into to begin with. Thanks for a lot of the surprising support, and I hope I can prove myself worthy to the honest opposition in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I liked your style in trying to develop policy by offering yourself as a test case for innovation. Actually, I think that's the way to change things that need changed - a reasoned exception to the current rules, which if accepted effectively changes policy without a discussion about policy changes in the abstract. It is both consensus-driven and pragmatic - meeting both our requirements, I suspect. If you are game for round three, I'd suggest you wait a month then try the following:
If you are willing to try something like that, I'm willing to help. I make the offer because I'm quite confident the mentors would in fact have little or nothing to do; I think you could do some useful admin work; and I think it would set a useful precedent for a 'probationary admin' model, given the tools easily, but easily removed.-- Docg 13:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see your RFA withdrawn, as I was sure you'd have made a great admin. I hope you'll stick around here, because we definitely need at least one of you, and if you left I'm not sure quite how we'd find a replacement. Certainly some of the opposes seemed nonsensical - oppose based on associations with a website you'd quit contributing to ages ago? Huh? Anyway. We're usually on opposite sides of deletion debates, but I have great respect for your work here. Keep on asking the questions that need asking. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 14:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to make you change your username (the tragic case of RandyWang → Daveydweeb is still fresh in my mind), but I was thinking that if your name is getting satirised on other websites, maybe you could have it edited. Now I myself personally think it is a hilarious username, but unfortunately easily given to satire. — $PЯING rαgђ 15:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Were lots of opposers *fD regulars? -- Kim Bruning 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Jeff. About the redundant: The article I tagged was "The Greatest Adventure: Stories From The Bible". There is already an article called "The Greatest Adventure: Stories from the Bible." The one I tagged offers almost nothing. The other one has almost everything on the show. The differences consist primarily of just the capitalization of certain words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CormorantEnt ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
It does meet criteria for speedy deletion - it doesn't assert it's notability. It's a non-notable drinking game. - hmwith talk 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I was about to leave an outraged message asking how you dared create for a book that clearly fails WP:BK since the only source is Publisher's Weekly, but I must confess I was afraid you'd think I was serious. But still, I am writing about Jack Plank Tells Tales. Of course, you might intend to expand the article but just in case: could you add precise non-stub categories when you create articles? As I've been doing quite a bit of categorisation recently myself, I've become very aware of the plight of stubs lost in stub neverland. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 17 | 23 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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. Ralbot 06:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You, of all people, should know to be civil in matters such as this, regardless of your feelings on the subject. This is one of the reasons why I opposed your RFA; an admin candidate (or a former one) should know better than to badger users and disrupt process (even if you claim it is for the sake of process), but you do this a lot and you've never been warned about it. Consider this your warning. -- Core desat 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | I see that you've made edits in articles about
Guster. I'm trying to create a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the band. If you're interested, please express interest for WikiProject Guster on the proposal page. Thanks! - [hmwith] |
Thanks. And I'm sorry that I have lost my temper with you, and been rude. Cheers, to better times! Kevin -- Kevin Murray 01:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm beginning to agree with you. The processes, as they stand, are pretty fucked up and probably broken. Rockstar ( T/ C) 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you know you had an Urban Dictionary entry? [2]. Rockstar ( T/ C) 21:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices. Please use the {{ hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you object if I opposed your acceptance of and those who nominated you to remain uninvolved in the attribution merger? -- Jreferee 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I think you handsomely won the latest round of sniping at WT:IAR - thanks for making me smile. Haukur 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you ever defend articles on the basis of policy if they're up for DRV after being kept in an AfD or XfD? Something like this seems to be right up your alley in the whole policy/common sense debate, but I haven't seen your name pop up. Is that because it is a DRV to overturn the TfD and delete the template? Just curious to see how far your inclusionist view goes when it comes in conflict with your views on the necessity for policy. By the way, I'm quickly moving away from the deletionist viewpoint, but I don't think I'll ever be an "inclusionist," per se. Probably end up somewhere in the middle, arguing policy over everything, whether it's delete or keep. Rockstar ( T/ C) 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. Process is not important. What is important is not lying to our readers with 5-month-old entirely false articles which are shown to be made up with 10 seconds of Googling - not leaving the article up for another week to mislead God knows how many other Wikipedia users. Jeff, you are an excellent contributor, but your attitude toward the accuracy and reliability of our content is contemptible. How on God's green Earth is the encyclopedia helped by leaving a lie up on it for another 7 days? The answer is, it's not, no matter how interested in "process" you are. IMO, you have a bad habit of picking the worst and least-worthy articles to defend, and it helps your cause not a bit. FCYTravis 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Taking something to DRV that you don't believe should be on the encyclopedia is a WP:POINT violation. Actually, worse, it is seeking deliberately to re-insert nonsense and lies onto wikipedia. We call that vandalism. And please don't resort to calling people assholes - you are better than that.-- Docg 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you in any way associated with this account>> Baqdlydrawnjeffgp53 cause both the usernames are similar(without the extras)..-- Cometstyles 18:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks..it has been tagged and blocked(Vandalism and Odd Imposter)..-- Cometstyles 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was considering advancing this article for GA soon, and I wondered if you could take a quick look at it if you have the time and tell me if there's anything you can spot that needs improvement. The one thing I know it needs is a picture! - working on that. Otherwise, I'd appreciate any comments. Thanks. Chubbles 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, Sorry. I could have been more tactful in my comments. I would like to work toward a solution as I think that you do have some good ideas, and I am somewhere between you and many others on inclusion. Can we start by working on the "PNC" to make it palatable and then figure out where to place it? -- Kevin Murray 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Thanks. zadignose 19:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion really does seem to be more logical than deletion in the end. That and 99% of deletionists are absolute morons. Even the admins. Rockstar ( T/ C) 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jeff. Very sorry for moving the "Disputed section" tag on WP:BIO in a manner that was not indicative of what you intended to communicate. When I saw it popping up before the TOC, I thought it was just a formatting oversight on your part, but I obviously should have checked with you first. Sorry again, and have a good one, Satori Son 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, just telling you that I opened a strawpoll on this proposal at WT:AI. I proposed a poll earlier and no one seemed to object. I hope you don't mind - probably I should have asked you specifically first (as it's your proposal originally) prior to opening the poll. My own vote is Neutral, as I can see both advantages and disadvantages to the proposal compared to WP:N. Wal ton Vivat Regina! 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Have a wonderful honeymoon. Durova Charge! 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I wish you two the best of luck and happiness!
>Radiant< 08:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Another congratulation for the pile: Good luck with the rest of your life, Jeff. Enjoy your time off, and try not to even think about us for the rest of the week. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We may disagree a lot, but congratulations and best of luck! Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
it was a great ceremony and honeymoon, I'll post a link to pictures soon. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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. Ralbot 04:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I have seen you in many afd debates, and in WP:MUSIC, WP:BK, WP:N, and so forth. From what I've seen so far, you are one of the Wikipedians that I deeply respect. You fight for what you believe for, and you don't let the politics of others get in the way of your judgment. That being said, you probably already know of a merger proposal of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS being merged into one article WP:ATT. Since this is huge, I think it would be good if you would weigh your thoughts in on the discussion at WP:ATT/P. Even if your neutral on the debate, you should add your thoughts and opinions under the neutral column, it might add more light to the debate. Thanks -- RiseRobotRise 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thank you for bringing The Turk to FA status. Mr. Barnstar 07:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
Not that you don't have better things to be doing right now, but if you get back in the next 13 hours, take a look. Congrats! :-D And on getting married, while I'm at it. Milto LOL pia 10:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You are very wrong on this and acting like a spoiled child. Save your energy for constructive efforts to compromise. -- Kevin Murray 03:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, A user has started off creating a series of stubs on individual Gary Numan songs. I get the impression that you know a lot more about music than I do. I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether it would be possible to properly source these stubs under the current rules and if so, where we could go to do this. Youy can see what I'm on about here. Thanks, oh and I believe congratulations are in order as well. -- Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment about my contributions. It really meant a lot. Danny 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
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. Ralbot 07:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why MySpace Events was deleted it has more than enough of everything to be a valid article.... Martini833 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think people are thiniking that List was to recreate Secert Shows when it was just an aid for MySpace Events. It was not another attempt at it as others had said. I only made it when people complained that the list on MySpace Events was too long that i made list so thts why i dont think it shoud be deleted its just another list out of the many lists on Wikipedia. And the ad tone and sources were all taken care of (more than necessary) so i dont see why anyone is complaining (much less deleting it)! Martini833 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jeff, welcome back. I was wondering if you could join the latest discussions on this page? There's talk now of combining this page and Wikipedia:Straw polls into one page called Wikipedia:Polling. Perhaps you could express your views on this idea? Thanks. ( → Netscott) 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, deleted again. - Denny ( talk) 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny ( talk) 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed you removed the prod from this page, as it has survived an AfD before. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think that previous AfDs granted immunity from later prods? There might be legitimate reasons to keep the article, but a 12-month-old AfD result doesn't seem like one of them. Can you find some policy that supports your position? (Oh, and I re-nominated the page at AfD, in case you're curious.) - Chardish 07:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment about the Wales co-founder nonsense over at the Essay article. In my opinion, this issue is THE most important one since if wikipedia can't even keep is founding straight, then WHAT article is really safe from this type of bastardization? Thanks again! -- Tom 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I got deletion-happy and baleeted the DRV page you requested so that you may start fresh. The Vile Dark Lord of Verifiability 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I enjoy finding sources for potentially-notable articles (like this one and the one on which we just interacted), so let me know if you ever need help on that sort of thing (especially if, as you mentioned, the Spanish-language barrier becomes an issue). JavaTenor 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi jeff—regarding Mom and Dad, copyediting requests have really picked up lately, so I can't guarantee anything. I'll keep it on my list though, and if no one else has got to it by then, I'll take a look! – Outriggr § 07:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Sorry, more of the anti-process crowd showed up to be counted. Truth be told, I can't entirely ignore the idea that the application of IAR to an "unsourced suicide method" is reasonable. Personally, I disagree with that view. As a DRV closer, though, I must acknowledge that it had greater support; it isn't so plainly wrong that I'm going to go out on a limb and reverse, despite its greater support. Of course, anyone is welcome to repost the information with sources. WP is not censored for the protection of minors, or suicidal people.
I think the use of IAR "because people might die!" is foolish, but it is one of the more rational uses of our "policy" (as opposed to, say, "because I don't like the content!") If the thing had been sourced, I probably would have ignored the head-count and relisted (of course, were it sourced, the head-count would have been different.) It didn't, though; per Uncle G, such sources don't seem to exist. I can't over-rule a majority on that basis, though I am most certainly not happy with the deletion log. Apologies, Xoloz 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments on User talk:Samuel Blanning. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Thank you for taking process seriously.
You clearly have a lot more experience with Wikipedia from start to finish than I do/can have. I am a process/policy idealist (as is probably already clear to you from what you may have read of my comments on DRV).
I've asked User:Xoloz for eir thoughts, but do you also have any suggestions on what kinds of measures in-Wikimedia can be taken to try to defuse the bloc's power in majorities? Clearly Wikimedia was founded with an eye toward consensus, but just as clearly, that's starting to be reinterpreted as voting majority. Do you know if there is anything that can be done by a relative newbie to try to refocus us back on meaningful consensus?
It seems like this has been a cause for you too in the long-run. I'm here to lend a hand/draw fire if need be. Please let me know if you want my help, or if you have any suggestions for me to strike out on my own. Thanks. -- MalcolmGin 16:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocs? That's interesting to me. Do you want people to follow process at all times, do you want them to follow consensus at all times, or do you want them to follow the majority at all times? These overlap, and are actually (theoretically) supposed to be identical, but in reality they differ subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly. -- Kim Bruning 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
So having mentioned roughly the groups that I know about... who is the "anti-process bloc". Are they some set of the blocs mentioned, or is it some different/new bloc? And where are they active? -- Kim Bruning 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps what IAR is trying to say is that Wikipedia is (supposed to be) an Adhocracy? -- Kim Bruning 23:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the big problem with policy and procedure is when they rust. Famously, during the Weimar republic era, the German army started devolving power to officers and soldiers in the field. Instead of rigorous procedure, people were allowed to take responsibility, act on their own, and make decisions on the spot in the field, provided their actions helped the entire war effort forward. When war came, the German army proved itself to be th most effective fighting force in the field, literally sending other (then) superpowers running. During world war two, the Germans were eventually subdued by a combination of superior numbers of their enemies, and party bureaucracy eroding their effectiveness from within.
A similar trend is also found in the us armed forces. During WWII, American adaptability allowed them to eventually slow and stop the Japanese advance in the pacific, but people were already starting to add layers of bureaucracy. By the time of Vietnam, it was in large part this bureaucracy which crippled the ability of the us army to efficiently wage war. After that defeat, the generals licked their wounds, learned their lessons, and evolved the armbed forces back away from bureaucracy, back towards what Alvin Toffler calls adhocracy, putting responsibility and decision making back in the hands of the mechanics, pilots, and soldiers on the ground. By the time of the Gulf War in 1991, Desert Storm sent the Iraqis sprawling. With the current US administration, bureaucracy is creeping back into operations, and you can see reduced effectiveness of the US armed forces as a result.
I've also seen some bureaucratic systems myself. Most recently I was detached to $large_company, to a division where people had procedures for everything. Sure, it was a quiet, safe environment to work in, where people hoped to stay until their pensions came around. But the main company was not so pleased with that division, since efficiency was not so high, and reactiveness to new situations was very low. So just as I was leaving, the main company announced that they were going to (effectively) lay off the entire work-force and rebuild the division from scratch.
So my view of bureaucratic systems is that they are symptomatic of large organizations with too much fat.
People on wikipedia think it's ok to waste huge swaths of volunteer time. I don't think so. In every hour that someone donates to wikipedia, they could have also been out working and earning $50-$100, so that's what an hour of work is worth, donated to us.
Like any other charity, we shouldn't throw that time/money away on endless "paper"work. We should use it to advance our mission. And our mission is to provide the world with an encyclopedia. :-)
So the question I work on every day is not: "How do we get people to follow procedures". My question is "How do we get the procedures out of people's faces, so that they can write that encyclopedia".
If we have to have procedures for things, let's teach the computers how to do those tasks, computers are great for following procedures. And then we should let Humans work in ways that they do best: let them use their Experience and Creativity.
-- Kim Bruning 14:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am interested in helping you bring back MySpace Events. If you would like yoou could look into another myspace event called the list myspace.com/thelist. Also me, you, and vendetta (from the deletion review) could make this article top notch. Contact him please and refer him to your talk page. Thanks Martini833 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Kla'quot has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Kla'quot 05:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this guy likes you almost as much as he likes me... [1]-- MONGO 07:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've seen several edit wars recently related to {{ pnc}}. If that template causes so much trouble, perhaps it ought to hit the bitbucket? >Radiant< 12:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Djmckee1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
It says on your userpage that you would like PROD and CSK to be expanded. Could you give me a brief idea of what you had in mind? >Radiant< 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Carabinieri 18:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jeff. So you don't think it's a good idea to give non-notable people an alternative when they are flagged for deletion?
I have made soem comments on your "Field guide to proper speedy deletion". It looks like a good idea to me, in general. DES (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 16 | 16 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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. Ralbot 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
--`' mikka 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think a high school basketball coach is really so important that we need an article about him?-- eskimospy (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Not that I'm challenging your vote or anything, but you seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to get across when it comes to A7 and deletion of content. I certainly wouldn't speedy-delete things on my own authority if there was any question as to their deletability; I'd send them to AfD and let the community decide, as per process. I was only trying to clarify to some of the other users that I wouldn't practise "process wonkery" either. Unfortunately I seem to have inadvertently contradicted myself, and am now drawing opposes from both inclusionists and deletionists. Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to oppose, but I just don't want you to think I'd go around indiscriminately deleting content. Anyway, I would have thought you'd be quite familiar with my deletion/inclusion stance (which is very middle-of-the-road) from our discussions on policy. Wal ton Vivat Regina! 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems there is no consensus for deleting, renaming or rewording the IAR policy. What's left to be done is try and keep an open eye on the way this policy is used in practice. I'm considering starting an "IAR Watch" project whose mission is to do just that. Would you be interested in joining such a project? Itayb 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You know what, forget about it. I spend too much time in Wikipedia already, mostly grinding water. I think what i really need is a prolonged WikiBreak. So long. :) Itayb 23:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I never knew that albums weren't speediable — can you explain why, cause I think I'm missin' something here-— arf! 05:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I do my best. I really try hard to avoid "no consensus" closes when it's at all possible, especially in a heavy debate like that. I think a lot of other admins might have closed the debate that way... which would lead to the same result (not deletion) but which would also leave the issue unresolved. Mango juice talk 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been wondering some time about the issue of the consensus of a small population overriding the consensus of something larger--policy, guidelines, etc.
This came up for me recently when two gaming articles changed their names. They had been using English translations, and were now using transliterated names for titles. One got changed back per WP:ENGLISH. The other did not.
The prposed move to move Dōbutsu no Mori (film) back to Animal Forest (film) failed, with a 2/2 split. The archived discussion is located here--it's long, but the final opinions of the two opposers are as followers.
"That would work in your favor if I agreed with the guideline. But I don't. To assume that any entity at Nintendo would use it is original research and I won't encourage that."
"Nintendo has never once said that the English title of this movie could be Animal Forest."'
"The only official release of this film is under "Dōbutsu no Mori". It was never released as "Animal Forest", nor is this specific film ever referred to as that in official sources."
These two opinions completey ignore WP:ENGLISH guidelines--in fact, the first person admits that they don't agree with the guidelines.
This and other moves and Afds have had me thinking a lot recently. These discussions net a very small pool. If one person votes to follow __ policy, and ten people vote the other way, without citing policy or guidelines or even without explaining why the first persons policy doesn't apply--then the move or deletion or whatever shouldn't be closed in the favour of the 11 who showed up, but in favour of the community consensus that already exists within the policy or guideline that that one person cited. I'm seeing a lot of moves and closing discussions where people won or could have won without citing any policy, and against the people who did cite policy, because they either disagreed with the policy in question or because they just didn't like whatever was at stake.
Which means I think we should make some changes to the consensus policy. But wouldn't IAR be useful in these cases? Unless I'm mistaken, the rules say to close in favor of whoever shows up, even if there is overriding consensus elsewhere. But that doesn't benefit Wikipedia--that just makes sure that policies and guidelines are ignored, and it doesn't benefit what consensus really means either.
I wouldn't just close in the favour of minority and say--IAR hahahah! But I'd say ignoring closing rules per IAR as no valid objections to simply policy ____ were made.
What do you think of that?
Btw, it's not possible to search for edit summaries is it? Because usage of IAR in edit summaries would really give a good understanding of if IAR was used for more than vandalism excusing and how. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just left a note on the talk page of WP:BK. Incidentally, I happened to go there because I was checking your contribs to see if you were around. Not that I care deeply about the whole thing but I was coming here to ask you to reconsider your oppose on Walton Monarchist's RfA which I believe came from a simple misunderstanding of his actual position on speedy deletion. (A position, I might add, that's probably much closer to yours than mine.) Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you're almost symbolic of oddball article deletion (oddball articles, not oddball ppl), what're your views on "common word" afds? I just started one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quite - and was curious. Feel free to ignore this though if you're, like, busy, or... whatever ^_^ Milto LOL pia 05:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Please help me check the contribs of User:Owski - he/she/it tagged a bunch of legit software articles as "db-spam" and lemmings just clicked delete, without actually checking the articles. I've blocked him but I'm trying to make sure the legit stuff gets restored. Thanks. FCYTravis 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on the AfD page for this book. I was happy to establish the notability of the book but I am perplexed by some the other comments left there and would appreciate your advice on how I might improve the article further. The comments I refer to are:
Thank you for your time, if you are able to donate some to this. If not, thank you for your previous contributions. -- Lesley Fairbairn 08:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've voted Support on your RfA, obviously. However, you might have been better-advised to wait a little while - yesterday I was thinking of nominating you myself, since I just found out you weren't already an admin. (I always assumed you were one already.) The problem is that, as a self-nominee who's well-known for your strong views on policy, you're going to draw knee-jerk opposes from the deletionist wing. If you'd been nominated by a third party, your candidacy would be safer in that respect. I hope your RfA succeeds, but if it doesn't, wait a few months and I'll nominate you for another attempt. Wal ton Vivat Regina! 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've got my fingers crossed for you, Jeff. A Train talk 19:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Here it is. -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
..or maybe you'll even feel like answering or maybe it will annoy you (but hopefully not). But I thought of a question for you, but I'm asking here instead of on your RFA. Where in the rules does it say you're allowed to request limited adminship? Aren't you playing a bit fast and loose with proper procedures? It seems unlike you. :) Friday (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was half-joking. But I had a half-serious point in there too. If there were two of you, and one of you invented a new procedure for limited adminship, the other one of you would have objected to it as being out of process. I'd thought I'd unerstood your stance, but this was really out of left field. To me it seems like you're simultaneously against anyone else "applying IAR" but you're perfectly happy to do it yourself? Bizarre. Friday (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Reposting it here, I'd prefer people not post with a "you'll get 'em next time" message or whatever - I'm not the least bit discouraged as much as disappointed in the usual suspects. It was an attempt at something different, and it didn't work - we move on. Here's the statement I left at the RfA talk page:
I had an inkling this wouldn't work regardless - i figured that the typical people would come out and oppose, and I had very few surprises through the first thirty or so. What I didn't expect was a repeat of the dishonesty that I received the first time around, and combine that with the fact that someone on Wikitruth decided to spoof my name is being held against me makes it fairly clear that I'm incapable of getting a fair hearing here, so I'm out. No need to distract myself from other, more important things at this point. Perhaps if I had kept going and been a little more aggressive about challenging the worst of it, I possibly could have made up the gap over the course of the week, but I'll pass, it's an effort I don't want to make for an outcome I had to talk myself into to begin with. Thanks for a lot of the surprising support, and I hope I can prove myself worthy to the honest opposition in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I liked your style in trying to develop policy by offering yourself as a test case for innovation. Actually, I think that's the way to change things that need changed - a reasoned exception to the current rules, which if accepted effectively changes policy without a discussion about policy changes in the abstract. It is both consensus-driven and pragmatic - meeting both our requirements, I suspect. If you are game for round three, I'd suggest you wait a month then try the following:
If you are willing to try something like that, I'm willing to help. I make the offer because I'm quite confident the mentors would in fact have little or nothing to do; I think you could do some useful admin work; and I think it would set a useful precedent for a 'probationary admin' model, given the tools easily, but easily removed.-- Docg 13:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see your RFA withdrawn, as I was sure you'd have made a great admin. I hope you'll stick around here, because we definitely need at least one of you, and if you left I'm not sure quite how we'd find a replacement. Certainly some of the opposes seemed nonsensical - oppose based on associations with a website you'd quit contributing to ages ago? Huh? Anyway. We're usually on opposite sides of deletion debates, but I have great respect for your work here. Keep on asking the questions that need asking. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 14:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to make you change your username (the tragic case of RandyWang → Daveydweeb is still fresh in my mind), but I was thinking that if your name is getting satirised on other websites, maybe you could have it edited. Now I myself personally think it is a hilarious username, but unfortunately easily given to satire. — $PЯING rαgђ 15:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Were lots of opposers *fD regulars? -- Kim Bruning 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Jeff. About the redundant: The article I tagged was "The Greatest Adventure: Stories From The Bible". There is already an article called "The Greatest Adventure: Stories from the Bible." The one I tagged offers almost nothing. The other one has almost everything on the show. The differences consist primarily of just the capitalization of certain words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CormorantEnt ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
It does meet criteria for speedy deletion - it doesn't assert it's notability. It's a non-notable drinking game. - hmwith talk 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I was about to leave an outraged message asking how you dared create for a book that clearly fails WP:BK since the only source is Publisher's Weekly, but I must confess I was afraid you'd think I was serious. But still, I am writing about Jack Plank Tells Tales. Of course, you might intend to expand the article but just in case: could you add precise non-stub categories when you create articles? As I've been doing quite a bit of categorisation recently myself, I've become very aware of the plight of stubs lost in stub neverland. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 17 | 23 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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. Ralbot 06:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You, of all people, should know to be civil in matters such as this, regardless of your feelings on the subject. This is one of the reasons why I opposed your RFA; an admin candidate (or a former one) should know better than to badger users and disrupt process (even if you claim it is for the sake of process), but you do this a lot and you've never been warned about it. Consider this your warning. -- Core desat 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | I see that you've made edits in articles about
Guster. I'm trying to create a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the band. If you're interested, please express interest for WikiProject Guster on the proposal page. Thanks! - [hmwith] |
Thanks. And I'm sorry that I have lost my temper with you, and been rude. Cheers, to better times! Kevin -- Kevin Murray 01:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm beginning to agree with you. The processes, as they stand, are pretty fucked up and probably broken. Rockstar ( T/ C) 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you know you had an Urban Dictionary entry? [2]. Rockstar ( T/ C) 21:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices. Please use the {{ hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you object if I opposed your acceptance of and those who nominated you to remain uninvolved in the attribution merger? -- Jreferee 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I think you handsomely won the latest round of sniping at WT:IAR - thanks for making me smile. Haukur 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you ever defend articles on the basis of policy if they're up for DRV after being kept in an AfD or XfD? Something like this seems to be right up your alley in the whole policy/common sense debate, but I haven't seen your name pop up. Is that because it is a DRV to overturn the TfD and delete the template? Just curious to see how far your inclusionist view goes when it comes in conflict with your views on the necessity for policy. By the way, I'm quickly moving away from the deletionist viewpoint, but I don't think I'll ever be an "inclusionist," per se. Probably end up somewhere in the middle, arguing policy over everything, whether it's delete or keep. Rockstar ( T/ C) 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. Process is not important. What is important is not lying to our readers with 5-month-old entirely false articles which are shown to be made up with 10 seconds of Googling - not leaving the article up for another week to mislead God knows how many other Wikipedia users. Jeff, you are an excellent contributor, but your attitude toward the accuracy and reliability of our content is contemptible. How on God's green Earth is the encyclopedia helped by leaving a lie up on it for another 7 days? The answer is, it's not, no matter how interested in "process" you are. IMO, you have a bad habit of picking the worst and least-worthy articles to defend, and it helps your cause not a bit. FCYTravis 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Taking something to DRV that you don't believe should be on the encyclopedia is a WP:POINT violation. Actually, worse, it is seeking deliberately to re-insert nonsense and lies onto wikipedia. We call that vandalism. And please don't resort to calling people assholes - you are better than that.-- Docg 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you in any way associated with this account>> Baqdlydrawnjeffgp53 cause both the usernames are similar(without the extras)..-- Cometstyles 18:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks..it has been tagged and blocked(Vandalism and Odd Imposter)..-- Cometstyles 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was considering advancing this article for GA soon, and I wondered if you could take a quick look at it if you have the time and tell me if there's anything you can spot that needs improvement. The one thing I know it needs is a picture! - working on that. Otherwise, I'd appreciate any comments. Thanks. Chubbles 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, Sorry. I could have been more tactful in my comments. I would like to work toward a solution as I think that you do have some good ideas, and I am somewhere between you and many others on inclusion. Can we start by working on the "PNC" to make it palatable and then figure out where to place it? -- Kevin Murray 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Thanks. zadignose 19:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion really does seem to be more logical than deletion in the end. That and 99% of deletionists are absolute morons. Even the admins. Rockstar ( T/ C) 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jeff. Very sorry for moving the "Disputed section" tag on WP:BIO in a manner that was not indicative of what you intended to communicate. When I saw it popping up before the TOC, I thought it was just a formatting oversight on your part, but I obviously should have checked with you first. Sorry again, and have a good one, Satori Son 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)