User talk:Jclemens

Welcome, correspondents I periodically do recent changes patrolling. If I reverted your edits, there's a large likelihood I did so for one or more of the following reasons:

1. No edit summary, especially for a removal. I can't read your mind. If you removed content that was a copyvio or an ad, you can either tell everyone by including an accurate edit summary, or not. If you don't, you stand a higher chance of getting reverted, because I have yet to meet any other recent changes patroller who can read minds, either.
2. No sourcing, especially for a controversial change. I don't normally revert non-outlandish changes unless I have personal knowledge that the original was more reasonable, but if you are going to make a change to a biography, the burden is on you to source it, especially if you want to assert that the existing article was radically incorrect with regard to any protected class.

If you include a good source and a good edit summary, odds of me reverting you are quite small indeed. If you still have questions about why I made a particular reversion, don't hesitate to start a new topic at the bottom of the page and ask why: I am always willing to explain my reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Mars

Hi there. I fininshed the Veronica Mars page, but it still needs a copyedit. I was wondering if you would be interested, or if not, could you direct me to someone who could? Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to look at it and provide comments. I may not get to it this evening, however, because of prior committments. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Most of the article is okay, I think the section that needs most work is the "Season synopses" section. I haven't changed much, and I fear it has some POV in it. Let's start with that, thanks. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For the "date" section in the refs, I wrote them like this: September 19, 2008 instead of 08-9-19, mainly because the new MoS does not require dates to be linked. How do you think we should go about it? I prefer September 19, 2008 for the "date" section, and 08-9-19 for the "accessdate" section. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I've always used them as yyyy-mm-dd both places, because it will autolink like that. I got reamed for that in my first run at GA, and have always just done it that way ever since. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I suggest we leave them as "September 19, 2008", and change them if the GA reviewer tells us to. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. If you've been monitoring my changes, I stopped doing those once I saw your note. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok thanks. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much on the work so far, I can already see mass improvement. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have started a new format of the cast and characters section on my sandbox, although it is just a draft. Which do you think works better? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the sandbox version better, but am concerned that it might be encroaching too much on the subject of List of Veronica Mars characters. At what point should the entire list be simply merged back into the show's article? I think we're agrees that that's not a good idea, but where do you think the line should be drawn? Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the sandbox version better too. Well I'm not sure what you are trying to say (lol), but I think that all the series regulars should be on the main page, and all the others just left on the "List of" page, along with the series regulars. Does that answer your question? And as for Lilly's casting info, where should we put that? If we use the new format, there will be no place left for it. I have already place it on the Lilly Kane page, I think that's good enough. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't like the sandbox version better. I previewed it with the main VM page, and it didn't really good that good. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think leaving it as-is will prevent GA? If so, we can always wait for the reviewer (eventually) to tell us what s/he thinks is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I modelled the cast and characters section after Lost, which is a(n) FA, so I don't think that will be a problem. I merely wanted to see if there was a better way to present the information, so I guess it is good as-is. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey, looks like we're getting close! Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good job! So what do you think we should do after it passes GA? Do you want to pursue an FAC? If your answer is yes, I think we should get another user to copyedit the article again, an then ask for a peer review. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm game, but I've never been to FAC before. I'm somewhat intimidated by the reputation it's gathered, but I've got to tackle it sometime... :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Um, well most of the FAC reviewers are "prose crazy". They usually can find errors where there aren't any, so that is why I suggested another copyedit. Do you know a user who would be willing to help? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. We could go straight to Peer Review and see if we can pick up someone there. I do know a couple of folks who've done FA work, but I don't know who really likes to work on pop culture stuff like VM. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(restart indent) Yeah, that's not a bad idea. I think the best person to copyedit the article is someone who has seen it, and when you look at the ratings of the show, I think that person is going to be hard to find. ;) When do you want to start the peer review? Straight after the GA or a few days later? Makes no difference to me. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I never saw it broadcast (I have the DVDs) so there may be more like me. Let's start peer review as soon as GA is attained. Jclemens (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We're passed GA, peer review initiated! :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's just hope everything goes smoothly. I'm going to go and ask a few editors to review the article, maybe you know a few editors? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, will do. 05:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Two editors with FAC experience ping'ed, one resultant edit. Better than nothing, but I suspect that many of the people who are comfortable working on FA material are already either sufficiently busy or inactive. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well the response has been slow. I'll try a few other users. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Veronica Mars episodes

Meanwhile, I have been working on List of Veronica Mars episodes. I am going to take it to FLC soon, but the summaries need a copyedit. Some of them contain a bit of POV, so I was wondering if you are up to it? Otherwise, the article is missing some ratings references, but I will fix that up. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely slammed this weekend, but I'll get to it as I can. Sounds like fun! Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, take as long as you want. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have done everything I can to the list. All it needs is a copyedit and then I will nominate it. No pressure though. ;) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 10:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, one copyedit on the episode list done. Might be room for more, I'll keep looking at it over the next day or two. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed this article as much as I think I can. Of course there is always room for improvement, but I think it is quite good. Do you think I should nominate it now? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Worst they can say is "no"--I think we're good enough they're not going to say "hell no, go away" :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, true though. Thanks for submitting it for PR, now I'll wait 'till that's done and nominate it straight away. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good news is we got a list of things to look at in PR. Hey, can you strikethrough the things you've handled, so I don't go trying to fix them twice? :-) Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do that now. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Neptune (Veronica Mars)

Looks like this was supposed to be merged into Veronica Mars or deleted. Hmm. Not sure I really want to do that. What if we merged a bunch of articles into Locations in Veronica Mars or something like that? Looks like some of the other fictional location articles are... well, need work. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't really want to waste a lot of time on pages like these. I think your suggestion was good: create Locations in Veronica Mars, and redirect all the "places" to that page, i.e. Neptune, California, Neptune Grand, Neptune High and Hearst College. Sound good? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Think we ought to make a two-person VM task force under Wikiproject:Television and just go to town? :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, well I don't see why not. If we do, what do you think will be our main focus? The main page is alredy a GA, and the episodes list is almost a FL. There really is nothing else to work on. The individual character pages would be a waste of time, there are soooo many stubby ones. Actually, we could start merging a couple in the main characters page. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology and Accusatoins of Partisanship

• I apologize for reporting your deletions previously. It appears that you were objecting to my use of "witch hunter", thinking I meant it figuratively, not literally, and that you thought I should obviously knew what portion of my edits you found objectionable. I, on the other hand, had no idea that this was the particular BLP issue you were talking about, thinking you were objecting to comething else.

• You may find it interesting that I have been accused of being a "pro Palin partisan", such as here[1]! My position is that any and all factual information, that bears on the subject of the article, should be in an encyclopedia article, even if it could be used by partisan encyclopedia users or researchers. I noticed that you have not objected to my proposals for Wasilla Assembly of God, now that they are properly sourced and directly relate to the church via its speakers, insofar as it relates to what was said at the church, or if it is related to what was said at the church by its invited speakers, or said about the church or about its speakers. So we appear to be in agreement. I more fully state my positoin here[2]. Tautologist (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As far as that WAoG stuff, I've really not reviewed your proposals. Aside from the other things I have been doing on Wikipedia, I've been a bit too busy with RL stuff to want to dive back into that topic. Thankfully, most everyone else seems to have lost interest as well. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Italian supercentarians

Coudl you re-visit the Afd? I find your oppose inactionable, thanks. —Ceran [speak] 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum

Stifle, if Wikipedia is not a democracy, why did you close the subj AfD as no consensus when it clearly has no independent, reliable sources and fails WP:MOVIE? I'd like to understand your reasoning, as I'm inclined to take this one to DRV, but don't want to look like an idiot if you had an unarticulated reason for the closure. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

There really was no consensus. Lack of references is a reason for improvement, not deletion, and the AFD participants did not agree that it failed WP:MOVIE. You're welcome to DRV it, of course, but I think you might be better off relisting it next month if it hasn't improved. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I followed the links to discuss other admin actions--sorry if that was the wrong place to put it.

Per discussion at Talk:Zeitgeist:_Addendum#Deletion_discussion_closed_as_no_consensus, two other editors disagree with your assessment of consensus. I think the crux of the disagreement is that "keep and improve" !votes simply ignored the fact that there are no reliable sources in the article and had no realistic remedy, and that your considering their non-policy-based objections violated WP:PRACTICAL. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God Biography of Living Persons?

I see that you placed a BLP template on the Wasilla Assembly of God talkpage. This is not a person, this is an organization. Does the BLP extend to organizations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltwin (talk • contribs) 23:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Any article can attract controversial, defamatory, or insufficiently sourced articles about people. Wikipedia's BLP policy applies everywere--regardless of what sort of article. If The BLP template is just a reminder, and can go on any article. If I put defamatory material info about Bill Gates into the Microsoft article, it's still just as off limits as if I put it in the Bill Gates article. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God

I understand your point, but the condescension won't help anything. There is no need to talk down to him, even if you think that his mistake was obvious. If you want to improve the article your best option is to teach Tautologist, not anger him. Plasticup ^T/C 03:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Realize that you're coming in late in an interaction that has extended for multiple weeks. Feel free to review the talk page archives and AfD discussion if you want to get a bit more historical perspective. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have skimmed it, and I appreciate your frustration. Infinite patience is a tall order, but maybe we can give it one more shot. Plasticup ^T/C 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The "quick-failing" of Xgrid

I noticed you "quick-failed" Xgrid, an article that I have made significant contributions to "due to sourcing". Would you be able to elaborate on this so I can know what is wrong with the article's sourcing. It should be also noted that when it was previously (and fully) reviewed by miranda she never mentioned anything wrong with the sourcing, just some style issues that I was unable to rectify in time due to IRL problems. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this decision may not be inline with good article criteria (in that 1) reliable sources is a guideline and not policy and 2) the GAC states that reliable sources are only a requirement direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons) and that these individual sources are reliable enough for the situation. Subsequently, I have started will be starting a good article review relating to the article. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's certainly your right. But if you wanted to work collaboratively on it, you could improve the references and I'll be happy to review it again. I think that's more likely to result in it being passed than a GAR, which seems to suffer from a general lack of interest. Nothing personal on the fail, and I do hope you succeed one way or the other. If you want me to step out of being a reviewer and start being a collaborator, I can search for RS'es for you--I have access to EBSCOHost and ProQuest--but if I start participating in the article I obviously can't review it for you again. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if you could find some more RS'es for the article as you have access to EBSCOHost and ProQuest (which I sadly don't) as the sources in the article are the only ones I could find on the general internet, which I thought would be enough. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right--it's pretty slim pickings out there, but not completely absent. I've got one MacWorld, two InfoWorld, and one Mainframe Computing... along with five false positives. That's incredibly low for an Apple product, but so be it. I'll get them added to the article in the next day or two and go ahead and check the rest of the article against GA criteria, so hopefully next time will be smooth sailing. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, turns out all four RS references were right around Xgrid's launch, so they've all gone into one paragraph. Feel free to edit what I've added. I'm going to put the GA nom back and mark it for a second opinion. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

see User Talk:Lar

Probably 'nuff said, but I am being libeled, and you might be as well. Collect (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)