Wikipedia talk:Silly Things

Template:Multidel

BJAODN

BJAODN has been deleted. If you're looking for this material, possible archives include:

• archive.org (a partial collection, ends just after #50)
• bjaodn.org (reasonably complete)
• uncyclopedia:meta: (fairly complete)

There may be others - this is not a comprehensive list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.150.76.42 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia talk:Silly Things/Archive one#Another website, do not add links to BJAODN archives. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that, in future, you refrain from editing comments left by others. If you wish to reply with your opinions, fine, but please do not remove existing content. --08:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that a link to the old archives would solve alot of trouble. Rather then having a flood of regular postings saying "Where did it go? I want a look... (Etc.)", we can just leave a note somewhere and helpfully preempt all of it. 68.39.174.238 17:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you both go read the previous discussion, and stop trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you'd prefer, I'll call an admin in here and see what they think. Seeing how they endorsed the deletion last time, I expect the same will happen this time. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction: 68.39.174.238 does not appear to by trying to be disruptive. However, that user should still read the past discussion. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

By linking to this fragment of the past discussion, you seem mostly to be quoting yourself. I see nothing there that constitutes a consensus among admins to censor the talk page in the way you propose. --66.102.80.239 23:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I agree that linking should be allowed, except...some people might consider the GDFL violations reasons not to. This is getting silly though, as I can't see any hard in having them here on the talk page for any other reason. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting User:Phil Sandifer, the admin who closed BJAODN MfD #6, and User:Moe Epsilon, and yah, me too. Other attempts at reviving BJAODN have already been deleted in their own MfD. But fine, if you want to keep putting them back, I'll ask for more involvement via WP:RFC. Who knows, maybe doing this again for the eight time in a month will yield different results. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The community does not just consist of admins. It also consists of anonymous editors and named editors. Consensus is generated by all of those. Admins sometimes tend to forget this, unfortunately. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Links to BJAODN archives

Request for Comment

The issue

The question is: Should we maintain a list of links to off-Wikipedia archives of BJAODN?

Background

• "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" (BJAODN) was deleted in accord with this MfD discussion.
  • That deletion was reviewed and upheld.
• Recreation of BJAODN in userspace was deleted in MfD.
  • That deletion was reviewed and upheld.
• The "Best of" pages have been nominated for deletion as well. That discussion is still in progress.
• A short discussion of the issue of links was held previously, and concluded against such links.
  • However, that discussion may have been too short to reflect consensus.

Discussion

BJAODN MfD #6 was closed as "Delete". Consensus was that BJAODN serves as a "monument to vandalism"; that such a monument was inappropriate with the spirit and mission of Wikipedia; and worse, actively harms Wikipedia by encouraging further vandalism. I respect the community's decision. I believe that linking to off-Wikipedia archives of BJAODN accomplishes the same thing as maintaining BJAODN on Wikipedia. If the one is inappropriate and encourages vandalism, so will the other. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple, anyone here to disrupt the community will be blocked. Rickyrab intended on reviving BJAODN and linking to the offsite BJAODN. He was also blocked for a week. Any questions? — Moe ε 04:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not intent on reviving BJAODN as an on-Wikipedia project. What I had intended to do was to create a personal bad jokes and other deleted nonsense page, which is not the same thing. I also intended to link to offsite BJAODN. I didn't see that as disruptive, but apparently others did. Currently, I have solved the problem (at least in theory) via a personal wiki in a libertarian wiki farm. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it was inappropriate to block people for making links that are relevant to a project page or historical project page, anyhow. WP:NOT censored. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Spamlinks are removed, not censored, and thats what you presented yourself as when you went and on every post starting to link to the same offsite trying to promote it. You made it very clear that you didn't like the result of the MFD, encourged editors to look elsewhere for the information and created a subpage that stated that you created the page for the sake of not being in accordance with the latest MFD. You were being disruptive. Do you wish to furthur press this issue? — Moe ε 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't consider it to be spam. Item 2)yes, I made it clear I didn't like the result of that MfD; item 3)yes, I encouraged editors to look elsewhere, item 4) I created a page that stated that it was not necessarily meant to be in compliance with the MfD, but it also stated that it was not necessarily intended to disobey that MfD, either: I was trying to stay neutral, and this was a response to User:Shalom deleting his own personal BJAODN in what he felt was compliance with that MfD. I didn't see the MfD at the time as reaching to all similar pages or BJAODN subpages, and I had called upon the closing admin to use discretion when deciding what to delete. Item 5)I am not so sure I was intentionally disruptive, but I admit to being excessive in my recommendations and activities concerning BJAODN. However, I still feel that linking to off-site repositories of BJAODN to show potential editors of BJAODN where they are was the right thing to do, lest they go about disrupting Wikipedia with the creation of a new project page (and the accompanying problems that editors are so sick of). In context, your removal of the links was disruptive. I'm wondering if you wish to further press the issue. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a somewhat misleading statement in that Rickyrab isn't merely stating that bjaodn.org, archive.org or anyone else online had a copy of this stuff (and many do). He was actively creating user-space subpages on the English-language Wikipedia itself to archive content. Apples and oranges. Whether you agree or disagree with the use of wikipedia:en: userspace for this is an entirely different issue to that of various Wikipedians objecting strongly enough to what's happening here to create their own wikis and recover the content there.

As for disrupting the community? We have a non-administrative user here taking it upon himself to actively edit others' comments on the talk page. Most of these edits archive or remove all mention that any of the off-site archives exist... including well-known commercial sites like Wayback Machine. Editing others' talkpage text in this manner is not just rude, in the current context (where the Wikipedia community is still deeply divided over the question of the original deletions) it does amount to disruption solely to make a point. Enough. --carlb 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with carlb. It's HARDLY disruptive to add external links on a talk page. Again, I can see that, IF it's a copyright infringement (because of the GDFL), it can be ok to remove the links -- but seriously, removing mention of The Wayback Machine?? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree: editing others' comments to make a WP:POINT is rude and disruptive. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Humor turned to a guideline

I do not think BJAODN should be deleted. It is not that bad. In fact if it is rewritten it could even be a guideline!--Angel David (talk•contribs) 15:21, 3 September, 2007 (User Talker Contributor)

You obviously have the wrong idea about what a guideline is, and what Wikipedia really is. — Moe ε 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a question of whether BJAODN should be deleted, it already has been deleted. I'm not sure what you mean by "rewritten ... guideline". Do you have something specific in mind? Make sure you address the various arguments against BJAODN given in past discussions (see #Background); it appears the community is growing weary of rehashing old arguments. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• BJAODN is by definition that "bad". That's what the B stands for. >Radiant< 13:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

There is a case for Some sort of "funnies (deliberate or otherwise)" page - but not including the previous "long stretches of seemingly turgid debate".

Items are posted to "a page" and have a keep/delete debate on them - after a week/month they are deleted if they do not reach a certain number of keep votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.240.26 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Something based solely on "keep votes" would fun afoul of Wikipedia is not a democracy. We're not supposed to vote on things, we're supposed to discuss them. Now, I suppose one could try and have some sort of approval process based on discussion, but the problem with that is that humor is a very subjective thing. Could it ever be more than people saying WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT? There's also the fact that there is strong consensus against BJAODN; see #Background for a good list. I suspect a proposal to reinstate BJAODN with some sort of inclusion criteria would still be shouted down. Can you address any of these concerns? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Something that fits in under "Other funny stuff" to put "creative misspelling and inspired writing": non-punning swearwords, and the "turgid stretches of text passing as debate" that characterised much of BJAODN meaning automatic exclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.0.10 (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just put your favorite jokes in a personal wiki, link the wiki to your user page, and move on. Let's cut this crap out already. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not what I was referring to - and most vandalism/bad editing etc is annoying or silly. There might be a place "somewhere" for the Benedict XVI/Palpatine switch, the please expand stub on a food issue relate page etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.0.10 (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not according to consensus there isn't a place. I suggest you let the matter drop. — Moe ε 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, what consensus? The community is divided deeply, and every time the ones that want everything deleted don't get their way, they just keep nominating and renominating this for the dustbin. We're up to attempt #6 now? Certainly not the same as "letting the matter drop" by any stretch of the imagination. --carlb 03:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Would add the "dubious quote" on Tony Benn's talk page. I think there is a certain concensus on "BJAODN as a sequence of pages" not being worth keeping on various grounds (encouraging non-amusing vandalism, turgid paragraphs etc etc), and most typos are uninteresting - but there is room on Wikipedia to a place to smile at the quirks of multiple usership etc.