User talk:Jclemens

Welcome, correspondents If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

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

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

About your nominated GAs

Hello there Jclemens, I've reviewed one of your nominated G articles, Winter Is Coming and I'm afraid I had to fail it because it lacked reliable sources/references and I've just noticed that you've also nominated The Kingsroad and Lord Snow and as it turns out they have the same references as the one I've failed.

I'll not review those articles because I'd feel as if I'd robbed you, but then again you haven't made a single edit to any of the three articles you've nominated for GA, what do you feel qualifies you to nominate them? But, that isn't the main issue, it's that there are now 2 articles up for nom that aren't up to scratch on their sources, could you possibly either gather the refs together yourself or take them off the list for another time, thanks a lot and sorry that I have to hurt rather than help you. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 15:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll review the fail, but there's no particular personal investment there--I am not a major editor to the articles, just someone who came along and said, "wow, this is pretty close to GA quality". Out of curiosity, did you consider and reject the idea of placing the episode article on hold? Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do normally place my reviews on hold, but this article essentially needs a rewrite because the contents could be fallacious based on the refs. That's why I wrote the bulleted tweaks that were needed, because I was initially going to put it on hold and then pass it once the changes were made, but then I spotted that half of the refs were from blogs and fansites, which is far more difficult to do in one sitting, so I felt it would be best to wait a little while. Well sorry about that and I hope to see you around. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 17:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You still have two articles up for GA review that are not up to scratch on their references. Are you planning on doing something about this, like adding references, or retracting the candidates or are you waiting for them to be reviewed? That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

When I nominated all three of them several weeks ago, I anticipated that I would have time to deal with issues raised. As is, several Arbcom matters are taking up my Wikipedia time, you didn't place the first one on hold in order for me to deal with the feedback before sending it back to the end of the GA line, and you've said you weren't going to do the other two. I haven't even had a chance to go through the current version of WIAGA and decide whether or not I agree with your call. Oh, and to answer your question raised above--anyone can nominate anything for GA. While it's typically an editor of the article, it's just as legitimate for an editor who sees the potential to nominate, and then finish whatever cleanup is necessary when the article is placed on hold. So... yes, I'm still waiting for them to be reviewed by someone else. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay well The Kingsroad has 7 unreliable sources out of 14 and Lord Snow has 10 unreliable sources out of 17 (blogs and fansites for both). If you want these articles to stand a fair chance of passing a GAR, you should probably change the references. For the moment most reviewers are going to quickfail them if they notice that the references are unreliable. Thanks and good luck, That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 21:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick question for you.

Regarding the IP you just blocked as a sock of that Bello guy, there is an on-going AFD that the IP opened, in which the consensus seems to be to merge and redirect the article in question. Does your block in any way affect that discussion and the ultimate result thereof? Do we need to restart it with an editor in good standing as the nominator? Thanks in advance, LHM 07:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. While the editor has been sanctioned in almost every single incarnation he's been spotted in, he's not banned. What's the AfD? I can check to see if he's voted twice, but striking duplicate !votes should be the extent of the impact there. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, assuming that it's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation of Youth for Christ, I can pretty much personally confirm that none of those other participants are this user. :-) You're good to go. Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the one. If I may, another question has arisen there. One of Bello/50.whatever's adversaries took it upon himself to strike the (now-blocked) IP's recommendation. I reverted the striking, because it seemed improper on its face. But, as I'm not familiar with exact protocols regarding such things, would you mind taking a look, and if any striking needs done, doing so as an uninvolved editor? Best, LHM 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Point 'em here if needed. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Will do. Thanks again! LHM 08:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, and this advice is out of date for future instances, because he has now been community banned at ANI. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Another quick question for you regarding Salegi=Wikimanone=BelloWello=50.72.159.224=????

Thank you for your actions regarding BelloWello. What's the best forum for requesting an investigation of the other experienced SPA IPs who were editing on the Seventh Day Adventist articles in a style strangely similar to BelloWello's? --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI suspecting him sounds like the best venue to me. If it's someone else, they will sort that out. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, JC. You walk on water, in my book! --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled how I got selected for this notice, since I haven't participated in either. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping proposed decision

All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackash have a chat 08:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Further problems with pro-SDA editors.

There is some serious grave-dancing going on about the block (and eventual ban) of Bello. I told them it didn't look very good to be acting that way, but it continued apace. They're also planning how that can be used as kind of a jury nullifier when it comes to the eventual close of the AFD. There's a large assumption amongst them that because they've marshaled the troops to make spurious keep arguments at the AFD, that there's basically no chance it will be merged or deleted. Perhaps a fresh voice talking to them would be helpful. They've drawn pretty clear battle lines, and no matter how civil I am in communicating with them, they've place me firmly in the "enemies" camp. LHM 05:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello poisoned the well, well and truly, just like he did every other single topic he touched, and it's going to take some time for people to calm down now that he's been removed from the situation. I'd suggest stepping back, and not worrying too much if the article is kept: keep appropriate tags on it, and feel free to re-nominate it in a few months if nothing has changed. You weren't the direct target of his hostility and battleground antics, so it may not seem like such a big deal to you as it does to the other "side" in the conflict. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

While I was only briefly the target of Bello's ire and battleground tactics, I've been on the receiving end of the single-purpose SDA folks' ire for a few days now. (And, in their way, they're every bit the battle line drawers that Bello was.) I prefer the open hostility of a guy like Bello to the passive-aggressive stuff I've been dealing with lately. LHM 05:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's not fun for you anymore, I strongly suggest going off in a completely different direction for a while. That works for me, since my interests are so eclectic, but clearly isn't for everyone. I think abandoning a battleground is preferable to quitting Wikipedia entirely, and I've had to do that a number of times over the years, because even when I was "winning", I was ruining my enjoyment. This is a hobby: a mondo-cool one, but still a hobby I do for fun. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm burnt out on Wikipedia. I edit a lot of different things (my contrib list is quite eclectic as well!), and have no particular interest in SDA articles outside of the fact that I've learned that there are a ton of them existing outside of our notability policy. In fact, I only came upon the GYFC article when I was doing a spot of RC work, and reverted a section blanking by Bello's IP, ironically enough. No, my only interest there is in seeing WP policy followed, and nothing more. I reserve most of my actual editing time for articles I find more interesting, or simple RC patrolling. LHM 06:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear. Non-notable articles are one of many problems in Wikipedia, and I rank non-notable articles without any COI promotion in them as pretty low on the list of things I believe need to be fixed urgently. If you want to get worked up over something, BLPs can be pretty atrocious, and actually affect real people. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's part of the concern about SDA-related articles: as most are sourced only to SDA-related publications, they turn into little more than puff-pieces. As for BLP, it's a growing concern of mine, as I've expressed at a few recent AFDs on related articles. For me, WP:BLP is probably the policy I've come to hold in the highest regard. There's simply no excuse for having violations of that policy existing on this project. LHM 06:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Consider, though, that SDAs are often regarded with suspicion by other Christian denominations, so they won't get the level of coverage in Christianity Today that other denominations might. They're pretty insular, and with relatively good reason. I remember seeing a polemical 4-tract series on "What's wrong with..." that covered LDS, JWs, Christian Science, and SDA. Now, I don't know how much of a Christian Theology buff you might happen to be, but if not, take my word for it: SDA is the "one of these things is not like the others" out of that foursome, hands down. So, against that backdrop, I have some sympathy for an increased level of self-reference vs. what one might find for e.g. the Southern Baptists. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's definitely odd to lump the SDAs with those other groups. However, the need for reliable 3rd party coverage doesn't seem like an incredibly high bar to jump. Surely, if these conferences and such are truly notable, they'd be mentioned in local news coverage and such, at least as a sort of "X people attended Y conference." GYFC doesn't even have that. But, if you're even willing to (mostly) disregard the 3rd party coverage requirement, then they're probably right: Bello getting banned has probably poisoned the well enough that whatever admin closes it will give weight to their ILIKEIT-style arguments, per the "aggrieved minority" angle nullifying the 3rd party coverage requirement. As an editor who's just now dabbling into policy matters, I find that disappointing, but I guess there's not much that can be done to counter such an argument. It's circular and self-fulfilling, and if accepted, impossible to counter for that reason. LHM 07:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't prematurely sell closing admins short. There's enough complaints about bad closes, that most self-select for only non-controversial things unless they have a thick skin and a good grasp of policy. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're right. But I would consider you that type of admin, and even you are being swayed by that kind of circular logic, so whatever happens, happens, I guess. I left a note at the talk page, where Donald is currently placing a wall of text about why the article should be kept, even with only SDA sources, noting that I took it off my watchlist. It's just not worth the wikistress right now. (Donald's been okay, but the other two pro-SDA editors have been "drawing the battle lines" pretty relentlessly.) Best, LHM 07:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If there's one thing I'm not, it's a slave to established rules. Rather, the guidelines are there to do just that: guide. If I see something that's clearly within the scope of WP:5P, reading them broadly as a reader might, but yet prohibited, restricted, or excluded by another policy in a way for which I can't see an appropriate justification, then that's probably a "bug" in the rules. Fictional game content is one such area--others have argued that most specific Dungeons & Dragons content isn't notable because the rulebooks, adventure modules, and magazine supporting material were all published by the company that promoted the game. Taken to an extreme, that viewpoint would destroy much worthwhile content that readers expect to find here, because we are the authoritative encyclopedia for most things geek. Even when there's no real challenge to the popularity, commercial viability, or accuracy, some use "notability" as a criterion for attempts to restrict such material which ignores the reason it was put there in the first place: enough readers care about it for it to be worthwhile for us to write about it. Notability guidelines that deprive readers of topics serve no encyclopedic purpose, and there's no circular logic there, just a lack of slavish adherence to current implementation guidelines, which are buggy. Jclemens (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see how that reasoning isn't circular. It boils down to WP:ILIKEIT at its core, with the only caveat being, at least several people need to like it. And if they do, it's kept, notable or not, because people like it. The other place where I would take issue with the argument (as it pertains to the GYFC article particularly) is that there isn't nearly the same following for this GYFC thing as for D&D. It's not close. LHM 15:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

JC, you don't just walk on water, you hop, skip and jump across it! Your approach to notability here is very refreshing because it's so reasonable. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I could have told you this was coming. Kenatipo was one of the editors participating in the grave dancing I mention above, as they celebrated the fact that Bello's banning would mean they most likely would de facto get to keep the GYFC article. LHM 16:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

LHM, you seem to not understand the big picture here. The "grave dancing" as you call it had pretty much nothing to do with the GYC article. You don't understand the hell that Bello put all of us through. Largely because of him I personally received something like 3 blocks and who knows how many reports to ANI and the like. He did it through his IP sock too. JC is just filling you in on the details at the end of a long and messy ordeal. The SDA situation on here has been crazy and we are happy that some normalcy can return. GYC plays very little part of this. It's a separate issue.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

First, if you were blocked 3 times, that's on you. Individual editors make individual choices. Second, it is not "normalcy" when pro-SDA editors then take aim at editors who want to see policy enforced neutrally on SDA articles. That's not "normalcy" at all, and it's one of the main reasons I unwatchlisted every article and AFD having to do with SDA topics. Dealing with pro-SDA editors has been quite unpleasant. LHM 16:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe you should have thicker skin and stop coming over here (SDA topic articles and their discussions) to engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND. Bello took advantage of my inexperience to suit his own ends. Oh and there's no such thing as "pro-SDA editors". It's ironic you would say such considering editors like Lionel are Catholic (a church many SDA's describe as "the harlot" or "beast").--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it to those who have watched the discussion unfold to note who has used battleground tactics. I've tried to be calm and reasoned at all points. If you have any particular concerns about specific edits of mine that you feel have crossed the line into setting up a battleground, feel free to post links to those comments at my talkpage. Best, LHM 17:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

FVK, didn't that sucker make an unearthly squeal when I drove the oaken stake through his heart (such as it was)? Good thing you were standing by with the revolver loaded with silver bullets and Lionel had the crucifix (blessed by B16!) right where the recently demised could clearly see it! Lithistman, I haven't voted on the GYC article; I don't think I even worked on it; and I'll probably just stay out of it. Somebody had to stand up to user:Salegi and if that turned the 'pedia into a battlefield then so be it! I predict that with Salegi gone there will be a huge decrease in the drama (but I am still concerned about the SPA IPs that were editing in the Salegi style). And, of course, anyone with Salegi's mix of cleverness, dishonesty and persistence will find his way back in. It's only a matter of time. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• • The fundamental difference (and yes, I'm pointedly ignoring the sniping above. Really, guys, please be civil to each other and treat each other as colleagues with whom you disagree, not enemies...) between ILIKEIT and my position is that I don't believe my own personal preferences are particularly important. Rather, I think there are no less that three separate groups who all need to be taken into consideration:
  • 1) The editors who add material. Obviously, they add material because they care about it and want to share their enthusiasm for a topic.
  • 2) The editors who maintain material. They have an appropriate voice as well, and should not be inappropriately stuck fixing messes created by group 1... but still: they don't add content, just improve/clean it up. It's often a thankless job, and they deserve recognition, too.
  • 3) The readers. These are the people who get the shortest shrift in our conversations--indeed, we pay far too little attention to the popularity of our articles. Really, we should be looking for things that are a) encyclopedic, b) popular, or c) some mix of both. Keeping our readership up requires us to have good articles on topics that readers care about. I've yet to see readers driven away because we had too much coverage of fiction--although pictures of genitalia or Mohammed do tend to alienate some readers. Readers are the pool from which we draw our new editors--they are the lifeblood of groups 1 and 2. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My problem with this is, taken to the extremes I see people arguing for (and you seem to be in that camp), the "encyclopedia" becomes little more than a repository for minor facts about not even moderately significant material that a few editors express interest in. There has to be some standard, and the steps you outline above lead to little more than a small group of editors claiming "But WELIKEIT" and being able to keep articles that aren't actually notable. LHM 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Don't let it go to extremes. Use common sense and alternative objective measures--while there's a general pushback in that area, there is no good reason that we can't have alternative criteria besides notability (as it's currently construed) that demonstrate inclusion-worthiness. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point JC. My origins are from Category 3. I was a reader who began noticing little bits of improvement that could be done. That led me to become a user and then editor. I have now moved somewhat towards the first two groups. I agree that we need to have information that the readers will enjoy. That is why I focus on areas I know were interesting to me.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of ecologic seagoing boats

Hi JClemens; could you provide me the text of the article "Comparison of ecologic seagoing boats" ? I would like to see whether it contained any useful information; if so I can use it on another wiki.

User:KVDP (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored to User:KVDP/Comparison of ecologic seagoing boats, enjoy! Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for BLP/Undue weight Review on Jay Severin

Hi- I was referred to you by Collect as an editor with experience and interest in BLP issues. VERY briefly, I reviwed and heavily edited the article on Jay Severin. I made my intention clear on the talk page and recieved no input for six days so I changed the article to bring it in line with the BIO template, expanded the article to include missing information, and trimmed it to reduce undue weight on his controversial actions at a local Boston radio station (WTKK). Another editor has expressed great dissatisfaction with my actions. Rather than engaging in an edit war, I am asking that you and Off2RioRob compare the exiting article with the edits I made (an older version can be found here and make a few helpful comments, if possible. Thanks! TreacherousWays (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the undue weight tag, which has been restored. My problem has always been with the absurd amount of brand new unsourced material in the rewrite. Xerxesnine (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can get to tonight. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jclemens-public. Any criticisms you can make will be very welcome. TreacherousWays (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that Off2RioRob has already given his input in the form of edits. On a cursory glance at the article as he's edited it, it looks balanced and appropriate, given what I know of how media coverage gravitates to the outlandish. It's still possible there's UNDUE there, but if anything, I suspect the proportion of RS coverage of Mr. Severin which applies to the controversial statements is probably greater than the space allotted to the discussion of those comments and their aftermath in the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reincarnation of a banned user?

Hi JC. I just wanted to get your opinion on the edits of this new IP. They seem eerily close to another user we had trouble with. Here is the link [1]. If you look through you will notice they edited both Southern Adventist University and Ouachita Hills College in the same manner as a previously banned user. The same goes for their other edits all on SDA education institution articles. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's almost positively him. Revert all the contributions as a banned user, if you believe it appropriate. Feel free to reference here. Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• As I have Jc's talkpage on my watchlist, I've gone ahead and reverted all of this IP's edits as that of banned User:BelloWello. LHM 14:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear we're on the same page. I did revert, but I'm being careful due to my history of blocks and edit warring with said user. Thanks all.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's back as 198.228.224.166 and 198.228.224.139 Mojoworker (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes thankfully Donald reverted the IP but we might need Pipim to be semi-protected for the short term.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The entire subnet can be reverted. Rather than waiting for me here (I have limited access to Wikipedia during the day at the moment), I suggest that suspicious new IP addresses editing SDA articles simply be reported via SPI, where the checkusers--whichever ones are around--can look at the underlying data and take appropriate action. Otherwise, any admin can block an IP per WP:DUCK. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

I was just skimming around and wanted to say that I found this really cool. It put a smile on my face, thanks. --Yaksar (let's chat) 05:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Rossitano

Hi, I'm the person who nominated this article for deletion. I was wondering if you would be willing to alter your decision to Keep/Merge instead of just keep as I believe it ends today or tomorrow and so far, you're the only person to be involved in any of the 6 articles I nominated from 30 Rock. If not, s'ok, I'd just rather have it merged, though I don't think much needs to really be merged, then stay in its current form until someone decides to bother with it (It has been tagged since 2007 in some cases).

• stalking thru here: Those AFDs probably all need to be relisted due to lack of participation, and it would be nice if the other AfDs were mentioned on each AfDs, so you can see the nomination is really about all the minor characters on the show.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, relisting would be an appropriate outcome... but if the nominator wants to withdraw, then editorially merge them all into a List of 30 Rock characters, that's a perfectly fine outcome, matches OUTCOMES, etc. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw and redirect you mean? If they remain inactive I'll do that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Original Sources

I've got another essay bubbling around in my head. Provisional title "original sources", which would be defined as...

1) Primary sources,

2) Which are currently available in their original format,

3) Where time and distance from origin do not present any legitimate questions of authorship or content.

Thus, this would mostly encompass 19th century and more current creative works.

But why make this distinction? Because original works are those which any editor can, for perhaps a fee, acquire and review the primary source in question. These are fundamentally different from pre-modern (or pre-Industrial revolution, if you prefer) writings. As such, they are authoritative for their own content and citing an original source would be appropriately V for its own content, much like any self-published source would be.

Thoughts so far? Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured this would happen.

Policy-based arguments don't seem to matter. It seems like it's just how many voted for a particular outcome, and damn the policy arguments made. It's hard to call it anything but a "vote", when one side argues policy, and the other side argues that they like the article a lot. LHM 17:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(I apologize in advance for replying to my own post.) I guess what's most frustrating is that there's no explanation for the close from the closing administrator. It's just "the result was no consensus" and leave it at that. It would seem to me that more care and consideration would be taken with such a close, given that there were serious policy issues raised with regards to the article. Perhaps the next time, instead of arguing a nuanced position, as I did, a straight "delete" vote would be better, given that for many (maybe most?) AFD closing admins, this is just a simple vote? LHM 17:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As Jclemens once said: Use common sense and alternative objective measures--while there's a general pushback in that area, there is no good reason that we can't have alternative criteria besides notability (as it's currently construed) that demonstrate inclusion-worthiness. My advice to you, Lithistman, is that you spend your energies deleting material that is truly offensive: start with santorum, cum shot and the ejaculation video. Stay away from articles like GYC which are interesting, informative, inoffensive and add something positive to wikipedia, even though their notability, as strictly defined, is questionable. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note to Jclemens: I told you they would misappropriate your statements as support for this article being kept. What Kenatipo writes here is nothing more than the WELIKEIT argument that was the only real argument presented at the AFD in favor of keeping it. LHM 18:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Note to LHM: "If there's one thing I'm not, it's a slave to established rules. Rather, the guidelines are there to do just that: guide. If I see something that's clearly within the scope of WP:5P, reading them broadly as a reader might, but yet prohibited, restricted, or excluded by another policy in a way for which I can't see an appropriate justification, then that's probably a "bug" in the rules. ... Taken to an extreme, that viewpoint would destroy much worthwhile content that readers expect to find here, because we are the authoritative encyclopedia for most things geek. Even when there's no real challenge to the popularity, commercial viability, or accuracy, some use "notability" as a criterion for attempts to restrict such material which ignores the reason it was put there in the first place: enough readers care about it for it to be worthwhile for us to write about it. Notability guidelines that deprive readers of topics serve no encyclopedic purpose, and there's no circular logic there, just a lack of slavish adherence to current implementation guidelines, which are buggy". —— Jclemens, circa 2011. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Are Kenatipo's actions here acceptable? LHM 20:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, they're not. K's not allowed to disagree with you. If he does then his actions are no longer "acceptable".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So, you'd classify Kenatipo's behavior above as simply disagreeing with me? That's not shocking to me. Even still, I asked Jclemens a question, and two editors who were part of the WELIKEIT movement at the AFD have now responded. This kind of proves the point of my initial post to Jc. LHM 21:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe thou dost protest too much oh LHM. Label me what thou likest. It maketh it neither more true nor false. I only responded on here because you asked a question about the actions of a fellow Wiki editor. Actions which while having some sarcasm, certainly are not illegal or "wrong". --Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to work with you guys. I didn't even recommend straight deletion at the AFD, but a far more nuanced position. You respond with snark and gloating? I guess I can't do anything about it, if that's the way you want to proceed, but it's certainly not very collegial. LHM 21:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make me resurrect your ,shall we say, "imperfect" history of statements against various editors.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you even talking about, FVK? And why are you still trying to engage me in battle? I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. LHM 22:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay LHM. I will spell it out. First, I came here only because I noticed that you asked a question about the legitimacy of an editor's behavior. I read the discussion and thought you were way overreacting, so I responded (albeit with a bit of sarcasm). This led to some back and forth. Second, I am now only engaging you to remind you that are the Pot calling the kettle black. You have a history of doing more than trying to "work" with various editors. For example you repeatedly attacked a certain editor on his Talk page, and then tried to push him out of a discussion about the GYC Afd because of actions for which he self-reverted. Just remember to every debate there are 2 sides. Rarely is either entirely innocent and "collegial".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you could possibly be talking about, would be when one editor edited my signed post at the AFD to make it look like I'd called the nominator something I had not called him. I've tried to remain collegial throughout this experience, and though it's sometimes been through proverbial gritted teeth, I feel like I've done that. LHM 22:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You're tempting me to post your less than flattering statements you've made. I will resist. You should however remember that you are not perfect and have engaged in "battle" as well.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Post away. I stand by every statement I've made during this process, and have attempted to be fair-minded throughout. LHM 22:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room! Black Kite's not an inclusionist--I think that's a fair way of characterizing his stance on things, and I doubt he'd take issue with it. So when he says there's no consensus, he's more often than not closing an AfD against his own personal preference, but in line with the expressed wishes of the community, which is what all admins are supposed to do. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In an AFD where one side made policy-based recommendations, while the other did not, I just felt like at least a brief explanation would have been in order. And my main point was that I knew what was going to happen after you made those comments above about WP:Notability only being a guideline, and not a policy. Once you gave the imprimatur of legitimacy to WELIKEIT arguments, I knew that any chance of finding a middle ground merge (as I recommended) was over. LHM 22:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The closing admin is perfectly capable of telling me to pound sand. I don't have any special standing in AfD's by virtue of seniority or position--or rather, I shouldn't--because I wasn't selected to any sort of a special status. I would hope that if my arguments are compelling it's because I have my own clear, internal view of what I believe the encyclopedia should become, and why overly narrow interpretations of inclusion criteria don't help reach that vision. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In an ideal world, members of the Arbitration Committee would not have special standing. However, this isn't an ideal world. As for WP:Notability being "only a guideline", and discounting it almost outright when enough editors like the subject of an article (this is how I read your position), I think this position is problematic. If there is no "bright line", then there's no way to truly argue for merging or deletion of any article other than super obvious ones. In the case of the GYFC article, for example, there are still no non-SDA sources supporting the content. According to what our community says about notability, that is perfectly fine if it's part of a larger article, which is why I recommended merging it. It's not fine for a stand-alone article, though, and I just can't seem to get my mind around how there's any other way to read our community standards regarding notability. I repeat, there's not even one non-SDA source in the article, even now. LHM 22:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Then the question really seems to be "are all SDA sources about an SDA organization inherently non-independent?" which seems to me a fair point for discussion. As far as I can tell, this right here is the first time I've actually commented on the nuances of this specific AfD, so regardless of the context of my other statements, I've really not taken a position for or against this particular article being kept. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be technically true, Jc, but it's not how your previous comments were viewed by either myself, or (apparently) the other editors at the AFD. As for the SDA-based sources, they're not third party. It would be like using Assembly of God magazines to "source" an article on a decent-sized conference put on by that denomination. It's just not acceptable. And when you look at what Acquire the Fire (a far larger and more established series of conferences) redirects to, the point is made all the more clear: there just isn't enough for a stand-alone article, though there is enough for inclusion in one of the larger, better-sourced SDA articles. LHM 22:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for interrupting but I just want to know what LHM considers to be a "better-sourced SDA article", since nearly all of them are sourced using what he calls "non-independent" sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Potential merge targets were outlined in the AFD. LHM 23:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ironically they also are heavily sourced by what LHM calls "non-independent" sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As well as sources that are third-party sources, which the GYFC article doesn't have... LHM 23:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If the GYC article doesn't have "third party sources" then neither do the articles it is proposed to be merged with.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Deal. I will end my fighting.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

More to the point... If you're looking for my quotes to use against other editors, I made another one a day or two ago when I said that the first duty of any editor was to get along with other good faith editors. Accept that you guys differ on specific interpretations of things, and go forth to work on things where you agree. It's poor form to gloat when "winning" or sulk when "losing". The goal here is not to win, but to build the best possible free, collaborative encyclopedia in the English language. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes JC. I haven't and don't plan to use your quotes against anyone. If I ever use quotes, it is only those of the individual themself. Yes collaboration I will certainly work towards.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sub-section for Jc and I's conversation only

Note: I'm creating this sub-section to make it easier for Jc and I to have our conversation. LHM 23:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be technically true, Jc, but it's not how your previous comments were viewed by either myself, or (apparently) the other editors at the AFD. As for the SDA-based sources, they're not third party. It would be like using Assembly of God magazines to "source" an article on a decent-sized conference put on by that denomination. It's just not acceptable. And when you look at what Acquire the Fire (a far larger and more established series of conferences) redirects to, the point is made all the more clear: there just isn't enough for a stand-alone article, though there is enough for inclusion in one of the larger, better-sourced SDA articles. LHM 22:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So can you point to parts of WP:IS that would extend to all same denomination publications? If your interpretation is so clear-cut, you should be able to articulate how it's derived in ways that average editors find compelling. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about "average editors" who are -- as I was when I arrived -- utterly disinterested in SDA-related articles? If so, that link is chock full of support for merging the GYFC article to a larger one. Just one example:

An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject' and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. (emphasis added)

This is just one amongst several portions of that page that support merging the article, and work against using SDA sources as the sole references for a stand-alone article. LHM 00:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying each source quoted in the GYC article has a significant connection--that is, that publication benefits specifically--to the topic? Moreso than the general benefit a newspaper receives from increasing its ad revenue, more than Rolling Stone magazine gains from promoting the music industry in general? There's where I think you might be building a bridge too far. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no comparison between an independent magazine covering an industry, and SDA-based periodicals covering an SDA conference. LHM 00:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Could you look into this and this. First, he reverts my addition of the "notability" tag on the GYFC article with an edit summary of "joining the edit war", then he makes a snarky post at my talk page, trying to bait me into a block. I've tried to be cordial during this process, but it's getting very difficult to remain so, Jc. LHM 00:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)