User talk:Bdj: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:41, 9 February 2007

A note to prospective commenters in the coming days/weeks

I handled myself in a less-than-stellar way regarding the "notability" guidelines. I still expect a resolution, but I let one person in particular get to me, and I won't allow that to happen again. If I pissed you off at any point during the proceedings even though you weren't directly involved, please accept my apology. I expect better of myself, and you all know I'm better than that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quitting on giving up is for quitters.

You sad, sad man, unable to shake the monkey off your back... Huzzah!
brenneman 07:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was scratching my shoulder and pulling my hair out, it hurt! --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The end is nigh

You and I are in agreement on DRV. The world will end soon. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 10:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that is a pig flying past the window. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words on you userpage. You are definitely my favourite nemisis ;) And if you are still interested in my jacobites, I've cobbled together another one Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany--Doc^g 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you deserve it, and thanks for being rationale re: Kohs. You're on a roll, BTW, I'm kind of jealous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but my next article may test our inclusionism: Anstruther Fish Bar--Doc^g 21:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's testing my ability to pronounce basic English... --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a snigger at me pissing off deletionists see here - the original text is preserved here. I'm only a deletionist now when it comes to bios (merge everything else), and that's for ethical reasons - we are incapable of policing under-watched bios from subtle libels - and, via OTRS, I see to many innocent people being hurt in real life.--Doc^g 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes love reading those because of the things you learn that you don't expect. One keep !voter in particular is surprising to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders

Hi. I saw your comments on this article. Thanks for defending it. I agree with your assessment that it has highly notable content. Just wondering where the actual article went. I thought the decision was to keep the article? See discussion here: [1] Thanks. Lafem 08:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was withdrawn, and a couple days later, discussion at the page apparently resulted in a redirect and/or merge. As long as tje information is there, that's what matters, the edit history still exists at the redirect page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community enforced mediation

What exactly would you like to mediate? And is the other party willing? This hasn't moved into the experimental phase yet, but considering the favorable responses so far the situation looks promising. Bear in mind: no guarantees. Please reply at my user talk page. Durova^Charge! 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying there per request. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh vile inclusionist pig-dog

Over at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_8#Miss_Nude_Universe I'm getting a bollocking for what seemed to me to be an utterly no-nosense speedy deletion. My head is reelling a little bit, and I don't want to prejudice you, but can you have a look? Am I utterly wrong here, or have I just made up from thin air that speedy deleting something like "Einstien was a patent clerk." can be ok even if there could be an article there if only it got some TLC? Am I rambling? - brenneman 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 What exactly would you like to mediate?  And is the other party willing?  This hasn't moved into the experimental phase yet, but considering the favorable responses so far the situation looks promising.  Bear in mind: no guarantees.  Please reply at my user talk page. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 :Replying there per request. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
+== Oh vile inclusionist pig-dog ==
+Over at [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_8#Miss_Nude_Universe]] I'm getting a bollocking for what seemed to me to be an utterly no-nosense speedy deletion.  My head is reelling a little bit, and I don't want to prejudice you, but can you have a look?  Am I utterly wrong here, or have I just made up from thin air that speedy deleting something like "[[Einstien]] was a patent clerk." can be ok even if there ''could'' be an article there if only it got some TLC?  Am I rambling? - <font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)