User talk:Jclemens

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...

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

Your GA nomination of Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack)

The article Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

GTN of Alesta

Could you do the book for me? I can’t do that... Thanks! Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak:Sure. I'll have it done within the next 12 hours. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: OK, that's done at a basic level. Mind you, that's my second try at a book, so someone else may come along and fix it, but you have something now, where there was nothing before. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind if you gave the nomination a support? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. Never listened to any of the music, but I can certainly see that these are legit GAs. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yet another vital-article element

If you're still interested, I've worked on getting silver to GAN: now it is there, and I remembered how many great points you raised for iron last year that I would never have thought of by myself. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If you can wait a couple of days, yes, I will be happy to pick that up. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem; please take your time! Meanwhile I shall go through the "dark d-block" area near the beginning and improve the chemistry sections when appropriate for those old GAs. ^_^ Soon we shall have a transition metal good topic, I hope. Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: trout and looking silly

I may look silly on occasion, but IMHO so do you when you are trying to defend totally meaningless fictional uber-footnote articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance (2nd nomination). I presume you have watchlisted Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements, so we can both meet there. If I am unsure, I won't hesitate to ask, and I do appreciate that you can dig out sources better than me, but I don't want to bother you with each and every fiction-related AfD I will start, since again we can all see them in the linked page collecting them. PS. But since I am interested in saving content where possible, I'll alert you to one more ST deletion that so far has not been listed on that page: Mackenzie Calhoun. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Fictional Elements is one of the DELSORTs I have watchlisted. You have a fundamentally different philosophy of article retention, and one that I think is less congruent with Wikipedia policies, but more importantly less congruent with what Wikipedia envisioned itself to be. The Eastern Alliance is a minor element in a modestly-analyzed fictional franchise from 40 years ago... but it still meets the GNG, so that any attempt to AfD it is inherently wrong: merge discussions for notable things go on their own talk pages. Thus, you nominate things to try and get them merged, and I contest them with policy-based rationales that generally prevail on the basis of how good the underlying sources are. If you stopped trying to use AfD to merge what you think are NN elements, you'd never see me. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

re: Proposal

Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong, just like me. Sometimes I just tag things with notability for few months, sometimes I propose a merge and sometimes I take them to AfD when I don't think there is any benefit for us to keep the article. I guess I could just redirect them, but I feel bad doing so with no prior discussion. But when I post on the talk page nobody replies. Unless I ping you, then you always say keep, then we have to take it to AfD. And if I just redirect it, what would stop you from reverting me at which point we would end up at AfD anyway? At least at AfD you'll see it and so will others and we can have a decent discussion. Otherwise the article either won't change or would be 'stealthily' deleted. Btw, I am always ok with soft deletions, i.e. deletion through redirect, while leaving the history of old article in place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would I revert it a redirection? When something is deleted it is GONE. All the donated time and text, lame though much of it may be, cannot be recovered by a non-admin. When something is redirected, if someone sees it and wants to improve on what was there before they can see it in the redirect history, and then un-redirect and improve it. I'd rather have a redirect 'war' than an afd:

You: Redirects X

Me: Un-redirects X, adding a couple of sources

You: again Redirects X, noting that the sourcing is uncompelling

Me: Un-redirects X again adding more sourcing.

The cool thing about that sort of editing collaboration is that every time the article comes back, it comes back with more sourcing, and we only go to AfD when an impasse is reached. It also has no timeline, so we can each leisurely move like a chess game with no clock, without any frantic rush to delete or save anything in a weeklong timeline.

Every time you prematurely nominate a fictional element for AfD, you're holding a gun to the head of the article: fix it, or it dies. For fictional elements, that is almost never the right answer (Quorum of Twelve seems to be a recent exception). If you stop threatening content with deletion, I don't have to rush to defend it. There are all sorts of POV pushing, pseudoscience, and advocacy on Wikipedia that REALLY do need deletion. In contrast to those, fictional elements are harmless, and by taking up AfD time and attention with harmless 'cruft' that could easily be dealt with by redirection, you're actually slowing the throughput for removing truly harmful material. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	This was one of the best, most gracious comments I've read in a long while. Thank you for your kindness, perspective, and gentle advocacy against grudge-holding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48