User talk:Jclemens: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
wikibreak/vacation message
Line 6: Line 6:
}}
}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}
{{wikibreak|message='''I will be traveling internationally without access to Wikipedia through 3/20.''' If you want something undeleted during this time, please ask at [[WP:REFUND]]}}

'''Welcome, correspondents'''
'''Welcome, correspondents'''
'''If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please [[User:Jclemens/Deletions|read this first]]''' and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
'''If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please [[User:Jclemens/Deletions|read this first]]''' and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.

Revision as of 18:48, 11 March 2010

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...

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

Userfy

Could you userfy Morning Coffee (Firefox add-on). Thanks, Mikemoral♪♫ 03:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could... but there's no reason it can't be restored to article space, which is where I put it back initially. You want it userified, or just to improve it in mainspace? Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was PROD'd, so it would be best to finish what I started in the userspace. Thanks, --Mikemoral♪♫ 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for MASSIVEGOOD

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MASSIVEGOOD. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--♪Tomo65♫ 15:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work. I'm pleased to be able to support your motion for restoration. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massivegood

Were your ears figuratively burning as you were undeleting this as the following quote was a post that edit conflicted with your closing of the discussion. Anyway, good on you for doing the right thing.

I can't see any logical reason why any passing admin can't restore the article without waiting for an interminable discussion over a week if they are happy that the concerns in the AFD have been addressed. I can't say I have looked at it myself but I do trust my former colleagues to do the right thing.

Spartaz Humbug! 17:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heh. No, no ears burning, but yes, I was thinking... "Why am I waiting for anyone else to comment? It's fine, it's a real world phenomenon, and no one is going to really object." Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently deleted the Gary Dale page on the basis that I was an "unelected politician". However, my claim to fame has little to do with politics but rather my work in the social justice movement. In particular, the FaxLeft network I established was extremely important during the 1990s before e-mail and web sites took over from faxes).

10 years after it was shut down, I still am remembered for it. Moreover, I have a substantial fan base on my frequently published letters and I'm about to join the national board of Fair Vote Canada. I was also recently called upon to help out the International Development and Relief Foundation.

I recognize that it's not always easy to figure out who is significant enough to merit a page on Wikipedia, but I've been elected to many positions on local, provincial and national bodies. The fact that "public office" is not among them shouldn't diminish the importance of my efforts.

I'd appreciate it if you would restore my page.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.221.253 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, but you should be aware that it probably wouldn't survive a deletion discussion. Please add citations to independent, reliable sources that demonstrate non-trivial coverage. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the user was intent on spamming after looking at what the website in question entails. I think the user may have been adding links to said website in rapid order if anything. –MuZemike 08:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but the contribution pattern, recent activity, and username all smelled a bit fishy. In combination? Too much to continue AGF. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Looking at his unblock request, I'd be fine with unblocking him after a talking-to about EL and spamming. The username is still concerning, though, and if there was more inappropriate behavior, I would be opposed to a third chance. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I didn't readily look at the username as much as I did the behaviors. Oh well... –MuZemike 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perioculomotor subgriseal neuronal stream

The manuscript detailing the perioculomotor subgriseal neuronal stream is in review at the Journal of Comparative Neurology. A citation for this term in Google scholar should appear shortly, and it would be appreciated if you would reinstate this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willgiardino (talkcontribs) 08:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll put it back in your userspace now so you can work on it, but there's just no call for it to go back into main article space until and unles there's multiple RS cites to the term. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been moved to User:Willgiardino/Perioculomotor subgriseal neuronal stream. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

RE: [1]

The Socratic Barnstar
The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments.

This barnstar is awarded to Jclemens, for his reasoned and convincing arguments, which I may not always agree with, but I always respect. Okip 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to restore Slide to Play

Hi Jclemens,

Would you please consider restoring the Slide to Play article? It was an expired PROD, for having failed WP:WEB and WP:RS. I'd like to address both. The article is about the site SlideToPlay.com, which is one of the most popular Web sites on the Internet about iPhone gaming, serving up nearly a million pages a month. It's been cited by MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30508084), as well as large gaming site GameSpot, who syndicates its reviews (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6233582.html), Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/5478058/street-fighter-iv-iphone-in-action), and has had its content printed in iPhone Life magazine.

The article is also reliably sourced, with citations both to its own content and to outside articles.

I believe the tone of the article is objective and does not advertise. In fact, when I first wrote it, I wrote it in my userspace and asked for it to be reviewed by admins to make sure it was acceptable. Admins moved it out of my userspace and live with no objections.

As the article is about an editorial outlet which by definition has been critical of certain products, I believe it's quite possible that the only reason it was flagged for deletion was because it was done by someone who disagrees with its editorial perspective.

I appreciate that you're taking this into consideration.

Thanks very much,

Gsadamb (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to restore Milun Tesovic

Hi Jclemens,

Please consider restoring Milun Tesovic's bio. Please suggest how to make it less self promotional or whether you just require more references (a google search results in significant additional information to below). It would seem that he is one of the most successful young entrepreneurs in North America, so I am a not clear on why the bio was removed. Here is some more background for you (not as it would be written):

Milun Tesovic is 24 years old. He is the Founder and CTO of Vancouver, Canada based Metroleap Media (http://www.metroleap.com/) and Metrolyrics.com, which he started when he was 15 years old. Metrolyrics is currently the 3rd largest global music website (and 3rd largest in the US) & no.1 music lyrics website, with 41 million unique users per month (and growing). Having struck a licensing deal with Gracenote’s lyrics program, besides its direct search driven business, it also acts as the default lyrics program for sites such as AOL Music and Billboard. Milun recently beat 31 competitors from 18 different countries to snag top spot at the Entrepreneurs Organization (EO) Global Student Entrepreneur Awards Awards (GSEA) held November 26, 2009, in Kansas City, Missouri (ie: he’s been pursuing his degree at the same time as building the company.). The GSEA is just the latest in a series of accolades for Tesovic. He has also been named Canadian Student Entrepreneur National Champion, SFU Student Entrepreneur of the Year and was recently listed as one of Billboard Magazine’s 30 Under 30. Metroleap has also received a Red Herring Top 50 award in 2009 year as one of Canada’s most innovative and promising companies. Milun was also a finalist in Ernst & Young's Young Entrepreneur of the Year Competition for Canada 2009.

http://www.youngentrepreneur.com/news/milun-tesovic-music-mogul/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.149.3 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, but I'm not sure the guy meets any of our notability standards. I'm not going to send it to Articles for Deletion, but someone else might. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Any tips to avoid deletion are appreciated. I will read up on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.149.3 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Kudos on your statement about the clarification on the ArbCOM case. Regardless of what we as individuals may feel about the RfC and its verdict, we cannot support people unilaterally disregarding the overriding consensus found therein. I have a feeling that this issue won't be solved until WMF acts---at which point I suspect that the keepers/fixers are going to find the outcome much less to their liking than the one I pushed for... but we shall see.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the note I left Okip? Sometimes, issues need to be raised and defended, because they foreclose some options and endorse others. Without a full hearing of that option, it still might have been assumed legitimate. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jclemens, I notice you deleted the above. Maybe it was right to do this. Just in case you weren't aware though, the real reason why the article was proded is that it contained the term British Isles - have a look at the user who proded it. Mister Flash (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you challenging the prod, or not? I'm not going to wade into a nationalistic controversy. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not challenging it, due to it being a relatively unimportant article. I'm just surprised that an article gets deleted almost by default when it's proded and no-one contests it. Perhaps low traffic proded articles that attract no discussion should not be deleted, if only to guard against those with an agenda - just a thought. Mister Flash (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD is designed to be a lightweight process. I look at the article, the objective reasonableness of the deletion criteria, and the deletion history. If there's no obvious mismatch... it goes. Such is that way of PROD, but on the other hand, all it takes is one editor to say "Wait, let's bring that back" and I put it back. Unless someone is a real jerk about it, in which case I send them to WP:REFUND: I'm not paid enough to sit through abuse. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm a new editor and I put a PROD on the above page. It was deleted, but now it has been recreated by a different user with the exact same text. Would you please advise me on whether I should PROD it again or take it to and AfD? Thanks in advance! ManicSpider (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PROD isn't appropriate the second time. Feel free to take it to AfD if desired, but PROD is not for anything that's ever been to AfD or PROD'ed before. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question on why page was removed

Hello, I'm trying to find out why the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickie_Milazzo page was removed after and why a G11 tag? Were there complaints. What would we need to do to restore a version? Thanx, Tom TomZiemba (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEACOCK applied. Who, pray tell, are "we"? Are you perhaps affiliated with the subject? Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]