User talk:Jclemens

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

Hello and a request[edit]

Waaaay back during the dawn of time, I reviewed the "Fire and Blood" Game of Thrones episode for you. Almost four years later, I have returned to ask a (perhaps random) favor. I'm currently in grad school working on an MA thesis on Wikipedia, fandom, and canon. Judging from your GA content, it seems that you have a soft spot for some TV shows, and I was wondering if I could ask you a few (~10) questions about how fans like yourself aggregate and define "canon" on Wikipedia in regards to cultural media objects (e.g. TV shows, movies)? You're under no obligation to say yes (I realize that you are semi-retired), but I just thought I'd ask! I'm sorry that this might seem super-weird or out of the blue!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Sure, ask away with the questions, but the general rule is I don't think canonicity of fictional works matters enough to include in a Wikipedia article. If you comb through my contribution histories, I think you'd find I've taken more than a few references to canon or canonicity out of articles. Not because I don't think canonicity exists, but because it's generally not something covered by any RS'es. For example, some of the Babylon 5 novels are considered more canonical than others, and we know this and can comment upon it because the B5 universe has a defined author, JMS, who is both an arbiter of canon, and an expert for WP:SELFPUB purposes. Contrast that with Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight comics, which occur after the end of the television series, and are authorized by the creator. How do they fundamentally differ from other comic books set in the same universe? Is 'canonicity' even a thing? There was a big whole set of Star Wars Extended Universe 'fan canon' (of which I am only peripherally aware, but know friends who can delve into great detail on it) of internally-consistent works of fiction, which just got blown up by The Force Awakens. Does anyone really care that Alan Dean Foster's Splinter of the Mind's Eye was never considered canon while everything Timothy Zahn touched was? Or, consider Richard Hatch's efforts to keep a Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) fictional canon going in print, while ignoring Battlestar Galactica 1980, which actually aired, with extreme prejudice. Does canon really matter enough that we should pronounce, in Wikipedia's voice, what is regarded as canon and what is not? I generally think not, and find many mentions of canonicity on Wikipedia to have been overwrought, under-supported, and not of interest to most readers. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
In all honesty, the questions I was going to ask were pretty much answered by your response (which I greatly appreciate)! I guess I just have two additional questions I'd like to ask. First, do you think the author is the one who ultimately has the final say in what is and is not canon (like your B5 and BtVS examples)? Second, from your observations, how do you think editors who do insert references to canon conceive of it in the first place? This is a rather broad question, I realize that. But you have a very unique perspective and I'd like to hear your opinion(s).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
So to understand fictional canon, I would recommend first considering the use and function of religious canon: canon sets the ground rules for the conversation. If we're discussing some point of orthodox Christian doctrine, and you decide to bring up a point that relies on The Gospel of Thomas, then you've committed a debate foul by bringing up a non-canonical work. This isn't a statement of the value, correctness, authenticity, or any other aspect of the Gospel of Thomas: it's not a canonical work, full stop. Or if you and I are playing Star Fleet Battles, we agree on the era and technology available before we set up our fleets, otherwise we can have nominally equal fleets, but anachronistic technology renders the game unbalanced.
In the case of a fictional universe, the stakes are much lower: no one's getting tagged a heretic, at any more than the most trivial level, for declaring that Seeing Red (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) never happened and Willow and Tara are living happily ever after. There are plenty of jokes about 'three Star Wars movies' or 'Boy, I'm glad they never made any Matrix sequels', that make light of the fact that just because the author of a fictional work makes new content doesn't mean it will be universally acclaimed by fans of the original work. Dune (novel) is easily the best novel in existence... but the subsequent books in the same universe each sucked more than the last. So in fiction, canon really governs the conversation between people. Its antithesis is fan fiction, where anyone, anywhere can decide to make stuff up and pretend as if it's part of a larger universe. Most people who write fanfic have an adequate grip on reality and understand that their creations are of limited interest to others... but I do remember once being tempted to fake a heart attack or seizure to get away from a woman who was regaling me with her tales of extended Airwolf universe fiction, inspired by a role-playing game set in that fictional universe... but I digress. Canon is why two people can have a conversation about a body of work, and agree on what is in or out of that work. The specific mechanism will vary, and it can really be negotiated by whomever wants to talk about it: Anyone can make a Star Wars costume, but if you want to be part of the 501st Legion, then they have some rules for you to follow. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Excellent respones. I really appreciate the thought you put into these, and I sincerely want to thank you for your help.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Mieko Ishikawa[edit]

Hi Jclemens, As part of a series of articles on women in video games, I'm looking to create an article on Mieko Ishikawa. I notice that a previous version was deleted in February 2010; likely because of insufficient sources. While this is a long time ago, I'm wondering if it is possible to have a copy restored to my Sandbox. I notice that you are now listed as semi-retired, so will create a new draft in User space in any case. Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I no longer have access to deleted articles, so I can't help you. You can ask WP:REFUND, or wait for a talk page stalker admin (there are a couple) to notice and come to your aid. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for the quick response; greatly appreciate it. I will see how I go with the WP:REFUND. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I can assist if needed. BOZ (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi BOZ, Many thanks for the offer of assistance; appreciate it. I have already received a "REFUND". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

‎Amendment request on arbitration decision against Rodhullandemu[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Rodhullandemu and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --George Ho (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, but I have nothing to say in public on the matter. The current committee is welcome to contact me off-wiki if they believe the private evidence considered by the committee passing the motion in question is insufficient to provide a robust and thorough reexamination of the matter, or if they otherwise desire an updated opinion from me on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment[edit]

Hi, since we interacted on the article Ark Encounter, where you rendered a 3O, I'm reaching out to you for an opinion. It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The reassessment raises the questions of sourcing; neutrality; and level of detail present in the article. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz.

I would welcome input or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would appreciate any feedback you could share. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would be willing to do this, but it will likely have to wait until at least next Wednesday. My Wikipedia time is limited by other obligations, but I do thank you for asking and hope that the reassessment has the time to wait until I can review it and give it justice. It's been a few years since I've done any substantial GA work, so I will be needing to bring myself back up to date.... but I'd been meaning to do that regardless. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
That would be great. The discussion has been quite lively and is still on-going. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
So, I looked through everything, and it looks like you have a set of very capable and interested editors who are working actively on the article. I don't see any good reason for me to chime in additionally. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for looking. I don't think your opinion would be redundant, as there was a lot of comments from MilHist coordinators to the effect of: "This source is fine"; "I think the lede is excellent"; "The more detail the better"; "No, this is important"; "I suggest you have a look at some other military biographical articles and educate yourself, because you are way off base with this"; "And at a glance I can see important points, like the fact that he spent twelve years as an Oberleutnant"; "You would need to establish that Gordon Williamson is not reliable"; "I strongly disagree. I personally prefer the German version"; "...this GAR has been a complete waste of the valuable time of a number of experienced editors"; "this is arrant nonsense" [my comments]; much more. I'm concerned that the MilHist community would treat this a "no consensus" and this lack of consensus would block further reassessment of similarly flawed articles, such as Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, Otto Kittel and Kurt Welter, among what appears to be dozens of others.

I've already seen this in edit summaries from the editor who opposed the edits to the Strachwitz article, such as:

I see a lot of emphasis on "this is how we[who?] do things" and "this has been established by consensus", resulting in articles that look similar to the Strachwitz one.

If you'd rather not contribute, that's totally cool and then thanks for letting me vent! :-). But if you have any suggestions on how to handle things going forward, that would be much appreciated. Either way is fine. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I think one of the problems of Wikipedia is that 1) it develops its own norms, and 2) new editors are viewed through the lens of past battlefield/argumentative editors. While everything is supposed to be collaborative, the fact is, editors who've been around for a while start getting cantankerous. Not out of ill will, mind you, but because they've had these same interactions before, and after a while these sorts of things just seem to be repetitive and bothersome. Thus, they can be brusque and come off as isolationist, even if they really don't intend to be. My take is to be open to suggestions, and start conversations with questions rather than posting suggestions for change immediately--while it SHOULD be all the same, the former seems less threatening than the latter. Does that help at all? Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Lucy spy ring[edit]

Hi; just to say, thank you for your explanation, and for responding to this; I shall go and have think about it (but not tonight!) Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)