User talk:Jclemens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at WP:REFUND

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...


Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 13, Portland, Oregon[edit]

Art-and-feminism.svg

You are invited to the Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, to be held on Saturday, September 13, 2014 from noon–4pm at the Independent Publishing Resource Center (IPRC), located at 1001 SE Division (97202).

Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend, but all are welcome. Hope to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the talk page.
You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup
Symbol support vote.svg

WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.

Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.

Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

Proposed undelete[edit]

First of all, let me know what I do wrong at any stage of the process here. I'm brand spanking new to editing wikipedia and I'm probably making all kinds of errors.

I read your page about deletion and as far as I can tell I'm going about this correctly. In 2009 you deleted the page for Massive (music software) for "No demonstration of notability independent of the company that produces the product; no third party sourcing." I don't know if Massive was as well known in 2009 as it is today, but it's phenomenally important now, as far as EDM production goes. Quite a few major bass music producer have publicly acknowledged using it, and its sound was very influential.

http://www.musicradar.com/us/tuition/tech/the-54-best-vst-au-plugin-synths-in-the-world-today-262145/53 Skrillex listing Massive as one of his favorite synths: http://www.musicradar.com/us/news/tech/interview-skrillex-on-ableton-live-plug-ins-production-and-more-510973 Excision listing Massive as his go-to synth: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1dwbbj/i_am_excision_dubstep_producerdjrobot_dinosaur/c9ugd8x Some pages dedicated to tutorials/use: https://www.facebook.com/MassiveSynth http://adsrsounds.com/synth/massive/ http://www.massivesynth.com

Just let me know what to do next and I'll give it a shot.

Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm no longer part of any admin or leadership role on Wikipedia--I cannot actually undelete anything at this point. You can wait until someone who is reads this here, or you can ask again at WP:REFUND. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements[edit]

The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe stop doing that[edit]

Your post in Oathkeeper was a bit attack-y, don't you think? I find it amazing that you jump down my throat over a matter that I did not start, over content that should not be in the article, instead of focusing on the one person who fought tooth and nail against no less than three different consensus' and RfCs. I think that, at best, you might want to rephrase your snarky post about my Wikipedia experience. And I am saying please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No attack intended or implied. No jumping down anyone's throat here, although I get that you might think that. If you'll check around, you'll find I have a reputation for being blunt, and that's exactly what I'm doing here:
1) Wikipedia works on consensus, and you're in such a minority view that everyone else who started out supporting your viewpoint has wandered off. If this were a win/lose game, you'd be losing badly.
2) But it's NOT a win-lose game. We all win when good content is added, and all lose when pointless debates bog things down such that content creators are busy doing other stuff instead of creating or improving content.
3) The WP:STICK reference is itself WP:AGFing that if you weren't mired in the debate that you are perpetuating, you'd be off adding or improving content. You genuinely seem like a fastidious and conscientious chap who'd be off improving things if you weren't arguing about something you find objectionable but no one else does.
Fact is, I disagree with your position, and think your cavalier use of "fancruft" is both wildly inaccurate in this context (really... have you SEEN some of the real fancruft around here?) and needlessly pejorative, but that's not why I said what I did. Rather, I hope you can just accept that your viewpoint hasn't been supported, leave the particular disagreement behind, and move on to other matters. People who cannot do so don't last long on Wikipedia--not because they're banned or driven off, but because their inability to work in a place where their strongly held views are rejected becomes self-liming. Please don't let that be you. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know that it was just my perception, and that no snark was intended. As for my rep for being blunt, you will have to fotgive me; I have less time for tolerating bullshit on WIkipedia than some. More power to those who do.
I realize that the side not in favor of inclusion has either wandered off or been worn down by another user's (four) months' long efforts to include the material, despite any and all consensus. It has been an instructive period for me, as well: determination is a lot more important than being right. Not the best lesson, but the one best demonstrated in that article. Live and learn.
I am not going to address the content anymore, since a new consensus has emerged. In fact, consensus has been forcibly pushed one way, and most of the dissenters, doing this for free, simply realized that we weren't getting paid to deal with the sort of personality and stubbornness that one user exhibited that most wandered off. So consensus will remain in place...until someone uses the argument to include fan sites that are slightly less acceptable, using this example. Then less acceptable and then even less acceptable. That's how a slippery slope works. Allowing fan sites is an incredibly bad idea, but some lessons have to be learned the hard way.
Anyhoo, I'm done with the argument about the content. If it sounds like there are hard feelings, well, there are. However, that'll fade as I work other articles in my free time. I can see why my Dad didn't come back to Wikipedia after his health improved. Einstein said there are only two infinite things, and this four-month misadventure has been an object lesson in the other one.
Again, thanks for letting me know that no insult was intended, and thanks for also taking the time to respond. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Jack's representation of the dispute is not entirely accurate. He claims that I've been forcibly pushing against consensus and that is not true. The consensus of previous parts of the discussion was never "don't include this content"; it was "don't use this/that specific source." So I found better ones. I also repeatedly asked other participants if they had any objections to this material other than sourcing and repeatedly got the answer "No," including from Jack. But it's possible that what Jack's really objecting to is, "Hey I wasn't always the only one arguing my side; sometimes it was the other side that had only one person," and that is true. Sometimes I was the only one. If you're wondering why Doniago, DonQuixote or Diego aren't still participating, the best thing to do is to ask them, not Jack or myself.
The slippery slope is another non-problem. You know better than either Jack or me that Westeros.org has been used on Wikipedia for years. But before finding out that all the GA articles used Westeros.org, I proposed using a high-quality fanblog article written by Ana Carol.[1] Even though it was on a professionally laid out site, even though Ms. Carol was a named member of its staff with credentials provided, even though it was cited to support an extremely lightweight claim, it still didn't make the cut. If there were a slippery slope, this is where we'd have slipped. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Darkfrog, that's not helpful either. I'm perfectly capable of drawing my own conclusions about things, and if you'll read WP:STICK yourself, you'll see that it also equally applies to 'winners' in a debate. My advice to let the thing die a natural death, move on, and add or improve content applies equally to all participants. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The article content is not what motivated that post. To put it as mildly as possible, I don't like it when people say things about me that aren't true. Jack's talking to you, that's his and your business. Jack's making accusations about me to you, that's my business. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want to work on Wikipedia, get used to people lying about you--or rather, speaking about things from their own perspective in a manner that you view as so divergent from actual reality that it is indistinguishable from malicious falsehood. Let your own record and conduct speak for itself and ignore the rest, or else you, too, will get too worked up to be effective on Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)