User talk:Jclemens/Archive 3

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


Re: Deletion of JW talk archives

Hi Jclemens, thanks for you message. I just want to make a new design for all category of JW talk archives. I also add {{Archive}} ). Deo Volente. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What best for your viewpoint, because you're a sysop in However, can you keep image of Vista-file-manager.png in each JW talk archives. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Ohconfucius's talk page archives

I'm curious about why you deleted this user's talk page archives dating from before January 1, 2008. I thought that U1 was not available for deleting talk pages. Deletion was especially unfortunate in this case because he is a party to an ongoing arbitration case involving his disruptive behavior. Now, the arbitrators are unable to see his talk pages from before January 1, 2008, and are even unable to see the edit history of those talk pages. Please consider reinstating those pages. Also, who requested the deletion of those talk pages? Ohconfucius's contribution history does not show a request (although I'm not sure if a request actually would show up there). Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, a U1 would not show up on his history, except in "deleted contributions", once it has been completed. I was not aware of the arbitration case; had I known, I might have declined his request. However, the talk page archives deleted were from between December 2006 and December 2007, and the request (reason given for each was "{{db-owner}} clearing out archives over a year old") seemed reasonable absent that context. I specifically give any other admin permission to reverse my deletions, if any of them believe that those talk page archives are relevant to any such ongoing action. That may seem like a cop-out, but I'm torn at how precisely to balance users' interests, and willing to defer to others more experienced in such cases. FWIW, unless he did page-move archiving, the contributions in question may still be in the contribution history of his talk page proper. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to be torn. I am prepared to consider any reasonable request by Admins to undelete these pages. However, I would point out that the Arbcom case which Tennis expert is referring to specifically relates to the date-delinking issue, which has only been going on since July/August 2008. Thus, the deleted content has absolutely no bearing on this case. I do practice page-move archiving. If I had wanted to cover my tracks, I would have had everything deleted, as I am entitled to do. FYI, the editor has edit-warred with me and has repeatedly taken me to ANI and AN3. Reinstating the contents would only serve to fuel the fanatical lengths to which the said editor is prepared to go to harass me regardless of whether my actions have any bearing on the case. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I would add that members of ARBCOM have full access to my deleted talk pages. Refusal to reinstate the deletion would merely deprive Tennis expert of the pleasure of presenting that 'evidence' to the relevant page, of which he is already a very substantial contributor in terms of kB. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Jclemens, the arbitration case is about the linking of dates plus the related disruptive behavior of certain editors, including Ohconfucius. He is a party to that case, not merely a bystander, and much of the evidence presented in the case by myself and others relates to his past and ongoing disruption. It's clear from his responses here that he requested deletion of the archives to prevent interested editors from presenting evidence about his past behavior. Because he engaged in page-moving, it is now impossible for anyone but an administrator to see the contribution history for his talk page archives. His argument about the arbitrators having access to his deleted talk pages is a red herring and disingenous. They consider only the evidence posted by others. They will not go surfing on their own to find evidence. So, again, I request that you reverse the deletion of his talk page archives as soon as possible. Completely apart from Ohconfucius, I am still puzzled about why anyone's talk page archives can be deleted at user request. The policy specifically says that talk pages are not eligible for deletion under U1. Could you explain what I am not understanding? Tennis expert (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The policy is unclear... or if it is clear, it's clear that user talk subpages can be deleted. CSD-U1 is not applicable to user talk pages, but if you look at the definitions in WP:USER, user talk subpages are defined as part of "user subpages" and not "user talk page". I really didn't delete the pages to step into a debate between the two of you. Tennis Expert, you have my permission to DRV those pages and I will be happy to abide by the community's consensus. Ohconfucius, if you will consent to their undeletion, that might head off some wikidrama that seems to me rather tangential to the issue under contention. I really don't want to be party to a tug of war. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
User talk pages (which are effectively the pages you deleted) are generally not deleted unless an editor chooses to leave the project invoking Right to vanish. Ohconfucius has muddied this given his method of archiving. The pages you deleted were created using page moves (most archives, such as those by bots, are done via copy/paste moves which leave the edit history at the user talk page; page moves move the revision history as well). This makes it impossible to look at prior discussions. I think this distinction is important, as well as the fact that this editor is currently involved in active arbitration over his behavior, so please revert your deletion of these pages. —Locke Coletc 22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just spent half an hour looking at past cases for these. I remain indecisive. I'll take input from anyone, but I'd prefer uninvolved administrators, who have my explicit permission to undelete the pages without it being considered wheel warring. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Good call, although the deference to another Admin to undelete is a bit of a cop-out, IMHO. I'm not going to make it easier for those who will stoop to any level in an effort to harass or embarrass me. The wikilawyering is quite impressive. If I hadn't been on the receiving end of so much of these tactics from the above, I could easily be persuaded that the request was reasonable and well-founded. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to imply someone else had to, just that they could go ahead and do so without waiting for me to do it if they felt restoration was the right option. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No argument there. Let them take it to DRV. I don't think they will gain anything by having those pages restored. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears that you may have seeded an edit war on WP:USER. Just thought I'd let you know. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. Broccoli (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Use it appropriately and in good health. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


{{talkback|Philippe}} - Philippe 15:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrist Instability

I've read the guy's letter to OTRS, and I've read his contributions, and I've concluded that he's not a vandal, and he's genuinely someone who wants to help.

Problematic, maybe, but not a vandal. I unblocked him, since he might be someone we can work with. DS (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'm cool with that outcome. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

3O possible?

Might I inveigle you to look at Business Plot which (IMHO) now has a ridiculous amount on unrelated "external references" etc. with extensive quotes from the material? It also now has ballooned into naming names of people who were never even arrested for the "plot" etc. The article has been fairly stable, but now, again only IMHO, become a weird example of "inclusionism" per the editor adding the material. I trust your judgement on this for sure, although the editor has vowed to " I will then systamtically dig through your entire edit history, as I have done with countless other admins before" which, for some odd reason did not scare me. Again -- thanks! 04:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to weigh in, but I'm a collaborator with you, so I'm not a neutral admin. We'll see what happens. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I looked, and I have no idea what is going on there. Sounds like you're trying to clean up some irrelevant coatracking and someone else is giving you a hard time because the tangential/irrelevant stuff has references? Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
More or less -- the person used to have his sock edit there as well. IMHO, an article on "Business Plot" should pretty much stick to that topic, instead of adding ctes for the "Trading With the Enemy Act" and "Nazi propaganda" etc. Merci! Collect (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Thanks! What prompted this? Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of RIP_A_Remix_Manifesto

There is some irony that you deleted an article about my film, which discusses aggressive reactions to copyright infringement. At any rate, it seems odd that the reason you stated was that it was an infringement of this article - although none of the text was similar. I didn't create the article, but was rather pleased to see it appear. I think the films recent success meets notability requirements, and rather than deleting it, perhaps you could re-instate it and over a period of time the content you find to be infringing would be removed.

Its unfortunate that you moved so quickly in this regard, as independent filmmakers can use whatever support they can find. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, so not sure how to have you get in touch with me, but my page is

Best regards, Brett Gaylor

What was the title of the article again? If I made an error deleting it, I'd be happy to correct it. However, the exact article name would help me research the issue. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Sarah Young

Hello, I would like to know why Sarah Young was speedied. She is a member of a notable band, and other members of the band have articles. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sarah Young is the cellist for the experimental alternative rock and Baroque pop band Cloud Cult. She is one of the original members recruited by Craig Minowa in 1995, and has been with the band since." That was the sum text of the deleted article. Is there anything in there that asserts any individual notability for her which would not otherwise be satisfied by a redirect to the band? If you look at WP:MUSICBIO, that's the default treatment for not-otherwise-notable members of notable bands. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We R Friends

Hi, Jclemens. Why did you delete We R Friends? The article had plenty of context when I began editing it. The content was "a movie about friends who run away to help their friend tina a drug addict when she is kidnapped." That's enough context to determine what this article is talking about. Furthermore, I think this Bollywood film would pass WP:NF due to the significant amount of coverage it has received on Google News Archive. Could you undelete it? I was adding:

'''''We R Friends''''' is a [[Bollywood]] film about friends who run away to help their friend Tina, a [[drug]] [[addict]], when she is kidnapped. The film is directed by [[Jaidev Chakravorthy]] and produced by [[Rajendra Kumar Jain]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Shooting: We r Friends |url= |work=[[Screen (magazine)|Screen]] |date=2008-11-23 |accessdate=23 February 2009 }}</ref> to the article when you deleted it.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That really wasn't enough context. What you have pasted here just now is. Feel free to recreate the page with that info--it would actually be more work for me to undelete it than it would be for you to recreate it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure about recreating the page. I found this article saying that this film "is probably one of the most non-talked films this year, both in trade and audience." The other references in this Google News Archive search are fairly brief. Could you take a look at the Google News search and see if the film is notable? I don't feel comfortable with creating an article about a possibly non-notable topic that I know so little about. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not it's ultimately notable, what you've listed is enough to pass the threshold for speedy deletion. Go ahead and add it back. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've recreated the page. For GFDL purposes, could you make a null edit on the page saying that the first creator of the article started the article with the content: "a movie about friends who run away to help their friend tina a drug addict when she is kidnapped." Best, Cunard (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. I undeleted that old edit, so it now shows up in the edit history. it now looks like you just improved it, rather than recreated it. Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi Why Tha Fuck Did U Delete My Page, My Page Was Zdog Trakz, Other Musicians Have Pages, I Just Wanted To Make One —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdogtrakz (talkcontribs)

Because the band is not notable, for starters. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory listing of things seeking fame. Oh, and do learn to be more WP:CIVIL, while you're at it. Might want to read WP:COI... just sayin'. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Hunt (computer game)

Hi. Looks like you deleted Hunt (computer_game) on Feb. 8. Did I miss an AFD discussion? I can't seem to find one. I'm not sure how you can claim it fails verifyability (though I don't recall the article very well). It was certainly a legitimate game (I've played it) and it is documented where other unix games are documented. First hit googling, for instance, is the manual page. Thanks for clarifying. jhawkinson (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It was an expired WP:PROD, and I really didn't look closely at it. Would you like it back? Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like it back please. Thanks!Hobit (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, it's back. It still looks like it needs work, so feel free to start in on it! Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do what I can! Hobit (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Could you also please restore the talk page? jhawkinson (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Violent Work of Art article deleted

Hi. You deleted the Violent Work of Art band's article under the assumption that it was not an important or signifigant band, but since I first heard Scars and Lord of Flies from Automated Species on a Sirius Satelite station Hard Attack, which is a nationally broadcast media network, as well as "performing live on Swedish Nation radio" as the bands bio at [1] says the article should be undeleted for the fact that as a notable band they are significant and important by influencing such a large number of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjpr83916 (talkcontribs) 04:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to recreate the article using reliable, independent sources to document their achievements and influence. Nothing the article said at the time it was deleted was a clear assertion of notability: one instance of live national airplay, for example, isn't the same as having songs in rotation on radio stations. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you obviously don't recongize Sirius Satelite that not one but two of their songs were in rotation as a radio station or understand how hard it is for a band to get on a national anything even just one time I'd appreciate a copy of the page if at all possible since I'm not an expert but do like the band so that I don't have to write it completely over. The email is Mjpr83916 (talkcontribs)
The article mentioned nothing about Sirius satellite. I'll userify it for you, though, so you can see exactly what it did and didn't assert. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, it's at User:Mjpr83916/Violent Work of Art. Feel free to improve it and move it back to mainspace. Do check against WP:MUSICBIO before doing so, of course. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Destruction Preventer

Did I use the wrong template? I thought D9 was for songs or any media that weren't notable or simply songs not accompanied by a band with an article. Anyway, I added a general speedy tag now if that will suffice and if it can even be deleted now... FireCrystal (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A9 is for songs which are uncontroversially non-notable. While notability or non-notability is not inherited, the thing that makes A9 different from WP:PROD or WP:AfD is the community agreement that if a song's artist doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article, it may be presumed that the song is non-notable. I suggest you try WP:PROD. It gives people five days to object, if desired, but doesn't add TOO much process to non-controversial but not speedyable deletions. WP:CSD isn't the only way to delete an article around here. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I misjudged the template criteria so anyway I'll use PROD now. FireCrystal (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Shopgirl15

Shopgirl15 (or whichever account was the first one) is back at Rideau High School as TamyaKeeping (talk · contribs). Just passing it along, the edit war at the high school article continues. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You meant User:TanyaKeeping, yes? Blocked. Please tag the page as a sock for me, would you? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
And now as TanyaKee (talk · contribs), making the usual go-round of "why are you doing this" and "what's a sock" and "wikipedia is garbage" edits. Already tagged. Dayewalker (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
... and blocked. Good grief, who thinks that "this is my only account!" as a first contribution is a remotely good idea? Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

notice {{hangon}} to article cited "for speedy deletion"

I had placed the notice {{hangon}} to under the article "Sequences of deities"; this was supposed to require a peer-review by several other editors to determine whether the article was to be retained. Your failure to abide by this Wikipedia rule may require an appeal to the appropriate Wikipedia disciplinary committee about possible misconduct by you. We are giving you an opportunity to respond here before taking this step. (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Might want to actually read the text of template:hangon before you decide to report me to anywhere. Might also not hurt to ask nicely why your article was deleted before protesting the action. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm feeling nice today so I'll tell you why it was deleted without you actually having to ask. In other words, I'll pretend your bluster was a polite request, and answer accordingly. WP:CSD A3 is for articles that aren't really anything but external links. In the form your article was when it was deleted, the entire content of the article, no less than seven links, was hosted at Pretty much the only other content was explanatory, or disparaging other ways of categorizing deities: impolite and not something I'd count as substantive content. If you'd like to recreate the article with content actually donated to Wikipedia under an appropriate license, feel free to do so. Articles should not be dependent on non-Wikipedia links; external links can enhance an article, but each article needs to be able to stand alone if the rest of the Internet vanishes, and that article clearly wasn't even close on that score. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we thank you for this useful explanation; and we may eventually put the content (of the articles linked to) onto Wikipedia as Wikipedia articles. This was recommended to us by another Wikipedia editor some months ago when we attempted the same manoeuvre (of links to articles on the internet). We have not yet done this (putting the content into Wikipedia articles) partly because of our uncertainty as to whether some Wikipedia editor might delete them as allegedly "original research", which they might possibly be described as. We are aware that printed books are acceptable to be quoted from (in Wikipedia articles), even by the authors of those books, without being construed as "original research" by Wikipedia editors, but we are uncertain about internet sources -- we would like to ask the question : "Can previous publication on the internet (as in our case) be regarded as sufficient to eliminate the charge of "original research" which might be used by Wikipedia editors as a reason for deleting content offered to Wikipedia?" (An authoritative answer to this question would be helpful to us in our making an decision to attempt to put such content onto Wikipedia. After all, we would hardly care to spend a number of hours set up Wikipedia articles just to have them all deleted in one fell swoop by some overly zealous editor.)0XQ (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally, if you're the only one publishing it, it's original research no matter whether it appears first on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the web. If it's published in an editorially independent, respected website, that's better than a clearly self-published website (Blogspot, etc.) Has this work been published in any peer-reviewed journals? If it has, then you're probably home free. Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleltion of Dreminol post

I saw that you deleted our recently posted patient empowerment awareness information about a new product we support our consumer base of over 1,000 loyal. We begun our first post concerning this supplement... Instead of such a rash deletion of new content from new contributors on your part, in the future please supply fledgling contributing authors steps to effective and proper tips for posting about new vitamin supplements that do not have any Wiki search results rather than practicing your crass form of content nazi-ism...

I look forward to your collaborative healthy response.

Wikipedia is for things that are already notable, not for articles that serve to promote not-yet-notable products. And calling deletion of such posts "content nazi-ism" while expecting a "collaborative healthy response"... I'm not sure whether it's ironic or just plain funny. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, however your feedback still is not very helpful. Your word of "notability" is ambiguous at best so much for a content editor being thorough and helping the effective proliferation of helpful qualitative information. The "ism" comment I made still describes your original blatant over aggressive deletion of the original post reinforced by your lack of assistance to improving user-ship. Your editor efforts should be user-centric and information neutral not self flattering which is evident by the short reply and sarcastic resolve. I acquiesce. SpringStreetVitaminscom (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Helpful advice: Go learn the policies, rather than spending time trying to snark. WP:NOT is a good page to start with, and WP:N will explain notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gruvis Malt

Hey man,

Just checkin' in because I noticed you deleted the Gruvis Malt page. You cited A7, but I'm gonna have to argue with your decision here. I personally find the Gruvis Malt page to be useful for me. I'm a big fan of the band. Not many people are, true, but they've been around long enough so that if anyone's interested in learning more about them, Wikipedia would be a great resource. I noticed the page was there, so I wanted to contribute a bit to really help people who wanna find more info about Gruvis Malt can easily do so. Unfortunately, they don't have a website anymore, so there really aren't any resources to find any information on the band (who their label was, what their albums were) without a Gruvis Malt wikipedia page. Just for reference, check 'em out here: Gruvis Malt. They're pretty popular, but hard to find info about.

So yeah, I just wanted you to consider revising your decision. Thanks so much for listening! -Ccomics88 Feb 23, 2009

You know what? I really agonized over that one. The article's been around for a while, had been edited... but fundamentally, there's nothing about the page that asserts any criteria that would pass WP:MUSICBIO. I'm going to userify it to User:Ccomics88/Gruvis Malt, and you can compare it to those notability standards, probably tweak a few things, add a source or two, and move it back into mainspace. Thanks for asking politely. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks man, I appreciate it. I'll try to wiki it up. :D --Ccomics88 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey again, Jclemens. I've been doing a bit of research on Gruvis Malt to find things that validate their notoriety, and I think I've found enough examples to support it. I haven't had a chance to put them up on the page yet, but can I just run them by you to see if they validate Gruvis Malt as a legitimate band page? Here's what I've found:
  • Gruvis Malt has released a total of 7 full length albums. One of these albums, ...With the Spirit of a Traffic Jam... was released by Lakeshore Records, which is a subsidiary of Lakeshore Entertainment.(Reference). Also on this album, a member of Incubus, DJ Chris Kilmore makes an appearance on two tracks (Reference, scroll down to the 2001 header).
  • The other albums released were released by Gruvis Malt frontman Gavin Castleton's own recording studio, Integers Only [ (Reference)]. This recording studio works with 6 or 7 bands, but I don't think it deserves its own wiki page. However, Gavin Castleton is very well known, and he is pretty much the mastermind behind Gruvis Malt. Here are some references for Gavin Castleton: (1), (2), (3). All of these articles mention Gruvis Malt.
  • I did a little research of Gruvis Malt's tour history, and even I was surprised at what I found. Some of the bands they've played with include Red Hot Chili Peppers, Incubus, Pennywise, The Roots, De La Soul, Save Ferris, Mos Def, G Love & Special Sauce, Blink 182, 3rd Eye Blind, Sugar Ray The Living Daylights, and The Sugar Hill Gang.(1), (2), (3). Not only that, but they've toured the entire US pretty much nonstop from 1996-2004, taking occasional seasons off to record.
  • They're on YouTube too. They play live, but these aren't just little basement shows. They've got a following, and people know the lyrics :P Check it out.
Again, thanks so much for listening! I haven't had a chance to put all this information on the page yet, but I hope it is enough to convince you that these guys are real and fairly well known. Talk to you later! --Ccomics88 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Adding those references will definitely keep the article out of A7 territory. It may be iffy if someone wants to take it to AfD, though, as some of thouse sources don't immediately jump out at me as reliable and independent. If you can put in a few hits from Google News archives, it probably should be AfD-proof, too. Best wishes, Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Update. I threw in those sources that I mentioned and put the article back up on the page. However, Ckatz still believes that Gruvis Malt still does not have enough notoriety to be on Wikipedia. I've left him my opinions, but he has yet to get back to me. Is there anything else that you think I can add to the article to demonstrate their notoriety, or anything else I can do for that matter? Thanks. --Ccomics88 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Where'd you put it? The article title is a redlink. Well, if you've done your best, added independent reliable sources, and an editor disagrees, tell him to take it to AfD, and y'all can get other input there. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It's back at User:Ccomics88/Gruvis Malt. Ckatz deleted it again, citing that nothing I did made gave it any more notoriety. I'd take it to AfD but he's still claiming A7 on it. Ccomics88 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Go back upthread a bit, go to that Google News search, and include a couple of those articles. The first two hits to the Providence Journal look free. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fluid articles by quality‎

I'm asking you to reconsider to your decline to speedy delete that category. The pages in that category exists are bot-created based on the existence of the category. You can take a look at them, and you'll find generic , and empty (empty lists, empty tables, etc...), WP 1.0 pages. The criteria would be housekeeping, not emptiness. ThanksHeadbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll check again. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been deleted as routine maintenance. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Renamed/Redirected Incorrect name for CTL.

The page "Current Total Limiting" now redirects to "Circuit Total Limitation (CTL)". My bad. That's why we do research and/or references! LP-mn (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, although not sure you wanted to include the acronym as part of the articlename. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh... Feel free to change it if you like. It's approaching finished as far as my participation is concerned. I still want to find the Web Page that showed the unsafe installation pictures with "Cheaters" up one side and down the other in a post-CTL panelboard (With ROOM TO SPARE!). LP-mn (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I just did a Wiki search for "Circuit Total Limitation", and it did NOT come up with any result. Does it take a while for Wiki's search engine to index the pages, or does the parentheses and acronym throw it off? If yes, then go ahead and delete them. I don't know how. LP-mn (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I moved it, leaving a redirect behind. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


How's it going? I just wanted to update you on what we've been up to in just the last month or so. We've been very successful in garnering more GA's for the D&D Wikiproject (and I have successfully branched out into comics GA's with Spider-Man and more), and we've racked up 6 more since you worked on us with Gary Gygax and Wizards of the Coast! We've gotten the Forgotten Realms and Drizzt Do'Urden, and several modules: Dragons of Despair, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, Tomb of Horrors, and White Plume Mountain. We have also nominated Expedition to the Barrier Peaks‎ (review has been picked up), The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth‎ (waiting for reviewer), and are planning on nominating Dragonlance in the near future. :) BOZ (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. I might pick up WG4. I loved that module. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I'll definitely let you know if we nominate Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. :) BOZ (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh, they're companion modules... I conflate them. :-) Really, of all the S series, S4/WG4 really had the most plausible integrity. Things had come a long way logically since Keep on the Borderlands. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a large part of the reason we decided to go whole hog on getting the S-series promoted. Plus, once Peregrine Fisher got really good at finding sources, the notability issue melted away on these articles and we could finally start adding some content that would make them worthy of promoting. :) With a boost of confidence, like I say, I started motivating people to also work on comics articles (which, to be honest, have a lot more potential in general): Spider-Man: One More Day has been reviewed and should be promoted any day, Silver Age of Comic Books is awaiting review, work was done on Alex Raymond and Pride and Joy (comics) and they'll be nommed soon, Fantastic Four needs a bit more work but will go soon as well, and Peanuts is currently being discussed for getting some work done and a nomination. :) The comics project already has about 60 GAs, but I think if we concentrate our efforts, we could have 100 by summer and be well on our way to 200 by the end of the year. As for the D&D project, I'll keep those GA noms coming as long as I can get the support. :) BOZ (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just passing by looking at something else and saw BOZ's comments, great work! I remember Barrier Peaks and Tomb of Horrors very well myself, really nice to see them get a quality article like that. Dayewalker (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good deal - Expedition to the Barrier Peaks‎ and The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth‎ both passed today. :) BOZ (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Declined speedy

If you read the text of {{db-f9}} it clearly states to edit the text of the tag or leave a message below the template explaining where the image is from. The uploader clearly listed the location it was copied from below the db tag, which is here - [2]. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to include diff so you even know what I'm talking about. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, deleted. In the future, please make sure that the source, not destination, tag appears inside the db- template. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted userified page

Hi JClemens! You deleted a userified version of a past AfD here: User talk:Fandezamora/Zamora. This was created by User:Ukexpat for the user so they could use it as a sandbox. There's a discussion here: Wikipedia:AIV#Zamora needs attention. The user is understandably confused as to why his page is gone :) Can you restore it? Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Ukexpat had tagged it as well, so it was a legitimate G7, even though it was tagged as U2. Odd. I'll put it back. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I don't see anything at that discussion link. Can you find me a better one? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well OK I'm confused now... Ukexpat seems to have restored the page and userified the discussion on the AN on top of it... hmmmm. Sorry about the link, used the wrong shortcut: Wikipedia:AN#Zamora needs attention. But I guess it's moot now. §FreeRangeFrog 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of BIG IF

I saw that you deleted the BIG IF page that I created today for A7. When I looked at A7, I saw that it says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source."

I'd like to ask you to reconsider your decision on the basis that the article makes a "credible claim of significance" when it indicates that this is the full-time venture of Ryan Key, the lead singer of Yellowcard. On band notability, Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria #6 states an article is noteworthy enough if it "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable."

If you look at the Yellowcard page, you'll see that they released a number of major label albums, and are a multi-platinum band. This should satisfy the claim of "significance or importance."

Then it should only be deleted if it's not a "credible claim." The article's source citation links to the band's myspace page, which will let you hear songs and see YouTube video that clearly shows that this is Ryan Key's new band. While myspace isn't often counted as a reliable source, the A7 rule says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source," and I believe the article demonstrates a credible claim of significance for the reasons I've listed.

Thanks for your time. Nothingcorporate (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You've just made an argument for making Big If a redirect to Ryan Key, if there's nothing else about Big If that's notable, per the rest of what WP:MUSICBIO criterion 6 says. I would have no objection to you creating that and including Big If content in Key's article. A7's only apply to specific copies of articles, and a new copy which better asserts notability won't be speedied. However, don't aim for things that will survive "speedy" criteria, aim for something that would survive an AfD--which includes reliable (non-Myspace, as you note) sourcing. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jclemens, the rest of WP:MUSICBIO criterion 6, as you pointed out, finishes "it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply." This is neither a side project or an earlier band of an artist who later became famous, so a redirect to Ryan Key doesn't seem to be what is called for.

Either way, if my above argument demonstrates that A7 doesn't apply, then it shouldn't have been speedily deleted and it should be reinstated. And if you think there are other reasons why it is still deletable, isn't the best course of action to reinstate the page and create an AfD page and let the community decide the new, non-A7-related arguments democratically, rather than just you and I debating it on your talk page?

Or better yet, how about you reinstate it, I'll improve it with additional sources, and we can both have a nice day knowing we've made wikipedia a better place.

Thanks, Nothingcorporate (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll userify it when I get a moment later today, and you can work on it in your userspace, and move it back when it's done. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it's been userified to User:Nothingcorporate/Big If. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed your message from my article

It was sourced. What is the problem? Thanks.--What Wat? (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources listed so far are reliable. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep A Breast Foundation

I hope this isn't wheel-warring, but I'm declining the speedy for copyvio on this article. Only the first paragraph was copyvio, as best I could tell, so I rewrote it. The organization seems notable from a Google search (and worthy). I wouldn't object to any non-speedy tags you want to add. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note, but it's nothing of the sort. I just noticed the speedy tag on the redirect, and moved it to the main article. I didn't evaluate the accuracy of the claim, and if I had, I would have either deleted the article or removed the tag myself. If I speedy tag anything, it tends to be because I want another pair of eyes on it, so declining a speedy I placed is never wheel warring; I delete clearcut cases without seeking a second opinion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


Hey there. I just wanted to notify you that I have created Veronica Mars (season 1). While uploading the image, however, I forgot to change the title: File:B000A59PMO.01. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V52125623 .jpg! Silly me :S Anyways, could you please fix this... thanks. :) 03:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Looks like I can't do it, even with the admin tools. I'm guessing it's just not possible to rename files, so looks like you should just upload a new copy... sorry! Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Dctriman's Brewery Tour Passport page

Please undelete my page. I am learning how to create pages here and think this will be an excellent resource for people who enjoy touring breweries. I realize the page wasn't complete, but if you would have looked again after you filed your premature claim, you would notice that a significant amount of additional information was being addded. There are 5 State brewer's guilds currently have brewery passports and having a single site resource that points out these states will not only be helpful to people like me who enjoy touring breweries but also will help encourage other state brewer's guilds to create similar projects. I am in no way affiliated with any of these organizations and this post was NOT spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dctriman (talkcontribs) 19:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why the delete?

Please explain why the page for Ewen Chia's Bio was deleted. You said "blatant advertising", but there is NO ADVERTISING ANYWHERE. Please elaborate on this for me.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenHenderson (talkcontribs) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a directory. That entry had no perceptible encyclopedic value, but served only as a promotional puff piece. G11 does not require that an offer of goods or services be made. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, try typing in "Tom Cruise". What comes up? A biography of his. What is the difference?

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand the difference and how one bio can be allowed, but not another. Ewen Chia is the greatest internet marketer ever. He deserves a wiki page highlighting some of his achievements. I kindly ask you to reconsider. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenHenderson (talkcontribs) 19:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, encyclopedias are known for highlighting famous and well-known people. Ewen Chia is as well known on the internet as anyone. This information IS encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenHenderson (talkcontribs) 19:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In my case, it means I don't go looking for things to delete. I look at and evaluate the speedy deletion proposals that other editors have submitted. If an article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, or even for a more detailed discussion, it goes. The lack of consistency isn't intentional, it's just an unavoidable byproduct of a non-centrally-managed project like Wikipedia. If he's notable, then next time include sourcing in the article (see other articles for examples) and don't write it like a press release. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. I will re-write it and submit with sources. Can I use the bio about him that is on my website as the source? It is unique from what I will submit here. Let me know if this is sufficient. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenHenderson (talkcontribs) 19:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have re-submitted the article. It looks much better, and I included the source. Can you tell me if this is sufficient? Thank you. StephenHenderson (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lydia Foy

Just a quick thanks for removing that speedy so promptly, and not leaping to conclusions like some I could mention if I didn't always assume good faith etc etc.


--  Chzz  ►  20:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't thank me. I wasn't the one who created it with a source--that's what saved it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I Do Not Hook Up

From the speedy tag, "See the (Previous discussion)." Although missing parentheses, I Do Not Hook Up is a recreation of (I Do Not) Hook Up. Here is the G4 being added, [3], before the AfD was started, [4]. Here is the previous discussion you said you could not find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(I Do Not) Hook Up. Aspects (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I overlooked that. It's gone now. Jclemens (talk)

Deletion of Pcwise's Look What We Found!

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world; anyone can edit it. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites, attracting at least 684 million visitors yearly by 2008. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on more than 10,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages. As of today, there are 2,767,490 articles in English. Every day, hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world collectively make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to augment the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia

That is from the Wikipedia About Page. Your telling me I can't make a page about Look At What We Found! But yet, because Birds Eye is a tiny bit bigger, it has it's own page. That is rubbish. I'll keep on putting the page back up, until you leave it alone. Delete things that don't need to be there. Wikipedia is there for reference. That's what it was doing.

The worst thing is, someone deleted my original page, and redirected it to a newer one, with the ! added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcwise (talkcontribs) 02:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So Hot (The Groove Song)

Wrong band, though. The Groove were a 1967 supergroup who haven't released an album in 40 years. Ironholds (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. I was noticing it and fixing that while you were posting here. :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Mengullo, Randy

Thanks for looking at this page. It was deleted following an AfD, but the result of the earlier AfD for Randy Mengullo was redirect. The Mengullo, Randy page was a recreation of that page (original text at User:Mmaasia) and seems unnecessary. Can you advise on whether I should just be figuring "redirects are cheap" or perhaps taking another route? JJL (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On the whole, redirects are cheap. If an AfD has said an article shouldn't exist, but there's a good place for a redirect to point (good place == article that meets inclusion guidelines and makes sense why that redirect ends up there), then a redirect is probably the right alternative. On the other hand, if someone insists on recreating things and un-redirecting it, they can be warned and/or the redirect protected if it's really a non-notable person. Nothing wrong with nominating such a redirect for deletion in good faith, but yes, redirects are cheap. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Intra Meridian Deletion (band article)

You deleted Intra Meridian because it was unverifiable? I was in the immediate process of gathering together legitimate and reliable sources. I was hoping to keep the article as they are a big band in Ontario, Canada. They have a big booking agent located in Michigan and are signing a contract with a promoter in California. They have already released one full-length studio album and a music video. They meet the criteria for an article. Christian (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MUSICBIO. While failing the standard by less than most, I still didn't see any assertion of current notability. Let me know if there is some, and I can restore the article to your user space, where you can edit in that new info, and then move the article back to mainspace. Nothing personal, and I hope that you're able to make it into an appropriate article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Power Core Modding Team

I had about 2 minutes of time trying to begin setting up my page and i get the speedy delete thing due to the messaging saying it was a business or somthing, i even specified on the page info it wasnt a business hoping it would resolve the issue. Anyway moving on, i dont understand why my page was removed but would like it back. If other people could make group related sites such as bands and music why couldnt i make one that supports my own group which was simply 3 friends and myself trying to gather people together to create video game mods. I just wanted to use the wiki page to be able to bring us out on the net. I mean articles on even specify i could advertise groups and such, so i dont understand why I am going through this, this is actually my second page i lost! I read some of the deletion posts some lost theirs due to notability? what do you mean as in proof of the groups exsistance? If thats the case then i can show you this, its my UNPUBLISHED website that I am hoping to soon publish and even set a link to my wiki page if I manage to keep one intact. The first page i had was called Power Core Corporation. Im not a business, its just a name i chose for my group. IF im missing somthing or if there is somthing else i should know please tell me? As i would really like my page back so I could have a Wiki about my group! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seryder (talkcontribs) 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless your group has actually been covered in independent, reliable sources, it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Really, speedy deletion of such things may seem harsh, but it saves everyone time in the long run, which is why it's a "speedy" process. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you dont mind I would like to be reasonable and discuss this just a little further. My group needs be covered by reliable sources, ok that makes sense and its understandable. However you mean to tell me somthing <-- LIKE THAT! has a reliable source that its allowed on Wikipedia! somthing so pointless and stupid is on wikipedia, but mine, no sorry its gone... I am sorry I am not looking for argument but i just find this very unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seryder (talkcontribs) 23:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that meme is kind of stupid, but it has been referenced in The Star (Ireland). Once something receives that level of media attention, it merits an article, no matter how much you or I might think it's unimportant or just plain dumb. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats remarkable! I love the things that DO get put into the news today. Well being as i cant seem to get such a high status to be on any of those reliable sources i guess im done here, i just wanted to take this time to thank you with a final message for taking the time to speak with me about this.

Don't give up. There are plenty of cool things to write about, but most pet projects--be they modding groups, garage bands, or whatever--don't meet the cut for inclusion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

R3 deletion of Gamble (Death Note episode)

Hi, Jclemens. I think R3 did not apply to that redirect, because it was created as a replacement of an old redirect that was moved while it was temporarily reverted to an article. That would also invalidate the G8 deletion of Talk:Gamble (Death Note episode). Have a nice day. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any content you need back from those pages? If not, feel free to just recreate them, as they certainly weren't inappropriate. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia I need help

Hi there my article was deleted coolchrist by you sir but can you please help me to make it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleywishes (talkcontribs) 02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Which article was it, and what was the reason given for deletion? That will be a letter (A or G, most likely) followed by 1-2 numbers. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Love Game

Hi there, you deleted a page that was created for the Lady GaGa single "Love Game" for reason A9. why was this page deleted? the song has an official music video and is going to be the 3rd single release in the UK and US. any help/info will be greatly appreciated. thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister sparky (talkcontribs) 02:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to the specific article deleted, please? I delete a lot of articles. Off the top of my head, if it was music by a notable artist that was labeled A9, I probably hadn't heard of the artist, didn't see it wikilinked, and assumed in good faith on the part of the nominator that the artist had no Wikipedia article. I see that there's an article for Lady Gaga, so I agree that A9 was probably not justified. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here is the link thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister sparky (talkcontribs) 14:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to recreate it. The entire text of the article, less the speedy tag, was:

== LoveGame (Lady GaGa Song) == Lady GaGa's 4th single international single and 3rd American single == Music Video == The [[Music Video]] for LoveGame premiere in February

I could put it back like that, but it clearly needs to be expanded to merit an article. Even if it wasn't A9 because Lady Gaga exists, it's almost an A3 for lacking significant info. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My page has been deleted.

Hi there,

My page "Orly Ben Garti" has been deleted saying that myspace has the copyright of the content, this is not correct as i have wrote that text and chose to put it in my wiki page and in the "about me" in myspace.

I am the only owner o that text as i wrote it, therefor i believe that my page was deleted by mistake and would like to know how to undelete it?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessbg (talkcontribs) 08:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:IOWN for the process. In short, you'll wither need to place a Wikipedia-compatible license on the site itself, or file an OTRS ticket documenting your ownership and release of rights. While I believe you, it's best for all involved if there's a traceable email or notice, at the very least, asserting that you are the owner and allow your content to be used under Wikipedia's terms. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the little things that count

Thanks for this J, I appreciate it. Cheers, Skomorokh 04:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate being noticed for those "little things" :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing Stars

I would appreciate if you could resurrect the above article. Although the band was short lived and only released this album, they were however notable in a number of ways :

  • the band was a spin off of the well-established band All About Eve, and documented in part the (first) break up of this band, and is an important part of the AAE history.
  • a number of the musicians involved are also well established
  • the album was officially recorded & released (if only in Sweden)

For more information, see the following page from All About Eve official site

Also the deletion does not seemd to have gone through any nomination, and at the very least the chance to merge the information should have been given. The Yeti (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was deleted per the WP:PROD process. Good news about that is that restoration is automatic--all you have to do is ask. Feel free to go ahead and add information about the band's notability, which was the reason given for the proposed deletion, to ensure that it's not put up for deletion again. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Fiddlekid/secret page game link, and Fiddlekid/secret page game link..

Hello Jclemens, I had just created a secret page game that I had worked VERY hard on. It was deleted because of "G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible". I don't see how my pages were any of those things. I would like it if you could put those back for me. If I made a mistake of making those real main pages and not user sub-pages, I would really appreciate it if you could make those into sub-pages for me because I am new to Wikipedia and I wouldn't know how to.

Thank you for hearing me out, --Fiddlekid (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) How old are you? 2) How would those pages have contributed to builing an encyclopedia? Jclemens (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one, I am not giving out any personal information. And two, how do other users secret pages contribute to building an encyclopedia and you direct that question at me in particular. I do not think of it as fair to let other users have their own little goof-off pages and I can't have my own. If you can make those pages non-detrimental to Wikipedia, I would be very happy about that. (I am trying very hard not to offend here). --Fiddlekid (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

you know what, just forget about all of this. I am sorry that I brought all of this up and wasted your time. no hard feelings. you can delete all of this stuff that I wrote. thanks,--Fiddlekid (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You may or may not be aware, but there's already extensive discussion about deleting all such "secret" pages in Wikipedia. I wouldn't recommend trying to start a new one. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Sthrt

RE: I have re-posted the content with references and articles proving notability. The new post also includes an image. I think the page meets all requirements now. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmcb (talkcontribs) 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have have deleted my post due to lack of notability... I have all the references compiled and didn't get a chance to add them to the page before it was deleted. If there was a save for later I would have used that for posting, but I assure you that the article has notability. Please contact me and let's get this resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmcb (talkcontribs) 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


I noticed on your user page you had Userboxes. This is the first ive seen them. I'd like to put them on my page, so how do they work?Dragon 03:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:USERBOX for the whole scoop. There are a lot of fun and interesting userboxes. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross

Nuvola apps important.svg SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


Hey! :) I have taken Veronica Mars (season 1) to FLC, but a reviewer has requested a negative review. Seeing as this is probably not possible ;), I was wondering if you knew of one. Thanks, 05:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I'll see what I can find. Pretty swamped with finals right now, though. Jclemens (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I actually managed to find some. :) I also created Veronica Mars (season 2), and updated List of Veronica Mars episodes. The "list of" page now has "boring" tables compared to List of Lost episodes and List of Smallville episodes, but they do they job. Oh, and good luck with your exams! :D 09:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical Library

Please, restore page The_Philosophical_Library The library is a thriving communitiy non-profit organization operating since 1963, you can take a look at our site: I'll be maintaining the WIKI page going forward. Apologies for missing any of the protocol or formatting, I'm yet to understand how this environment operates or what tools to use. WaterKin (Walter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterKin (talkcontribs) 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please go ahead with your improvements. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

Irish clover.jpg

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Apostolic Johannite Church userification

I've got a copy of the final text of the AJC article I can just copy-paste into my user space for further work. Is that the way to do it or is there editor magic that preserves the edit history? -- Timbomb (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll userify it for you for precisely that reason, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, it's now at User:Timbomb/Apostolic Johannite Church. First thing you need to do is find reliable, independent sources which actually mention the church's name--I read the US News & World Report ref, and it's an independent, reliable source, but doesn't mention the church by that name at all. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks JC. We'll work on it. I appreciate your help. -- Timbomb (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • While I disagree with the final outcome, I appreciate the support in bringing the article up to standards. --Wbehun (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That's just the thing. The outcome is only "final" for now. The article can go back in mainspace once good sourcing is found and included. The goal here (at least for me) isn't to "win" battles or "defend" articles on topics we like... but make sure we have an encyclopedia with reliable sourcing that can verify that an article covers a notable topic. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


"01:43, 6 March 2009 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "FXCM" ‎ (Expired PROD: Advertisement, Self-promotion, Spam)" -Please undelete this entry, Forex Capital Markets (FXCM) is one of the largest, if not the largest, retail foreign exchange brokerage in the US, as evidenced by net capital data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (, publicly released balance sheet and financial results, which show assets, revenue, and ebitda higher than that of any other us-based fx brokerage releasing such data, and multiple years of inc 500 status (2007 article here The firm is reported on on a regular basis in industry publications such as FX Week (do a search for fxcm on Competition in the industry is perhaps a bit underhanded, which is likely why the article was marked as advertisement/self-promo/spam, on this note see the controversy over Saxo Bank's wikipedia page, (Saxo is one of FXCM's European counterparts/competitors) which was publicly reported on the Danish press. If the above does not warrant its inclusion in your opinion, articles on companies in the same industry of similar or even much smaller size, e.g. Saxo Bank, IG Group, FXdirekt_Bank, Varengold, Fxmarketspace, should also be deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Restored. Feel free to invest effort in improving the article--there are still a couple of cleanup tags on it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Because I know you take pride in salvaging articles (or potential articles) that have merit but have never had anything approaching adequate development, I thought you might be interested in Morton_Kaplan, which I discovered today. The article was just listed as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morton_Kaplan, but after a few minutes of easy searches, it seems to me the nomination (and support for deletion) is for the wrong reasons. There's practically no article there at present. Lots of potential. -Exucmember (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Chase Meridian merge

Hello, there is a proposal to merge an article you recently discussed here. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Firefly episodes

I noticed you made changes to that page, using contractions (that is -> that's). I'm not sure if there's a rule on contractions but my understanding is that one is supposed to use it sparingly. eZio (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're reading it backwards. I believe if you look again, you'll see I actually took out existing contractions. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Marjorie Spock article

I have just completed a full rewrite of the article you just deleted. Will you allow me to add it as a new article or will that cause a problem? --EPadmirateur (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as the copyright violation text is gone, it would be welcome to fill that void. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think I have rewritten it completely. Perhaps you can check it again when I put it out. Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If you've done so in good faith, then by all means be WP:BOLD and stick it back up. If there's a serious problem, someone will probably point it out. (In other words, keep your local copy just in case). For now, I'm going to bed. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of declined speedy

You declined my db-attack on the page Ilackasourceism because, in your words, "It doesn't attack anyone in particular in its current state." Do you mean to say that G-10 only applies to people? WP:CSD G10 uses the words "subject" and "entity," and the article certainly attacks its subject (Wikipedia). I was going to take this to Talk:CSD but thought I'd ask you instead (or first, if necessary). ~EdGl 17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it really attacks Wikipedia, and even if it does, we risk losing face by not allowing free criticism. If you put the article up for AfD, I'll support its deletion as it clearly doesn't belong, but I don't see a really good CSD that applies to it. Most of the G10's I've seen/deleted are immediately and obviously attacks of the sort of "[real person] is/does [bad thing]" e.g., Ted is mentally retarded, Jenny is a ho, Fred is a transsexual nazi eskimo, that sort of stuff. This is just much less offensive and so much more cerebral that I just don't see it fitting in the category. Again, fastest way to delete it will be just to AfD it, which I will support--it'd take longer and more discussion to reverse my decision than just to move on to the "more cumbersome" AfD process, which is still a lot less work and drama than a DRV. Once you've started the AfD, we can always have a discussion with more editors about whether I'm too narrowly construing G10. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
After reading the article again I think you're right. The article has a prod tag on it which is the "next best thing." Hopefully the author doesn't remove it! :) Have a great day. ~EdGl 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Daybreak reverts

You need to stop, JClemens. You are fully aware that the citation does not address the statements, and reverting it back in implies an intellectual dishonesty that I have trouble believing of you. Please take a closer look at what you are reverting. No one is arguing that the poem exists. What is contention - and you should know, as you are participating in the discussion - is the lack of suitable citation connecting the poem to what Anders says. As there is discussion ongoing, I would ask that you leave the subsection alone until we arrive at a consensus. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't say everything you want it to say. That's no reason to take it out, especially when a {{cn}} tag is right there pointing out the deficiency still existed. At any rate, the article's full protected now, although I wouldn't have asked for such. It's a specific cite that Sheffield Steel asked for, and even if it's insufficient, it's a step in the right direction and removing it doesn't help matters any. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, i don't think it is a sep in the right direction, since putting a citation regarding the poem send the wrong message to the reader about the connectedness of the two, and acts as a strawman argument for those who say 'hey, you wanted a citation there, and now you got itl why you still bitchin'?' Its better - far better to have an actual citation that connects the two together, or not at all. Without a citation, the info should not be there.
Btw, thanks for adding my sig in. I appreciate it. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
We can move the cite, so it's clear that it's citing the quotes from the poem, rather than the whole assertion, but there's no good reason to take it out unless the entire assertion (this sounds like that) is struck. I'm always in favor of citing as much as possible, and toning down claims to make a credible statement about what appears to be a pretty straightforward allusion, rather than chunking the whole thing. FWIW, when I respond to two different people in one edit session, I often sign twice so an intervening comment doesn't confuse who wrote what. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Girlsareshort and Al-P

Hi Jclemens. I'm not sure what has happened with these articles: As you can see from their histories, these are not uncontroversial deletions, given the connection to MSTRKRFT. Would you be willing to restore so that they could have a full AfD discussion? Thanks in advance, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no assertion of notability and no sources in either article. If you'd like them userified, I'll userify them for you so you can add sources. Failing that, you can feel free to redirect those articles to MSTRKRFT. (or, of course, you could try and recreate them from scratch with good sourcing, but that would be silly when userification is available) Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The connection to MSTRKRFT is the assertion of notability, through WP:MUSIC criterion #6. (I'm not saying that they would be certain to survive at AfD, but they would merit the full discussion, in my view, especially since Prods and notability tags were removed during the articles' lifetimes.) I'll try to search for some sources for the articles this weekend. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
So you'd like 'em back userified? I don't restore articles to mainspace that are still speedy candidates, and I don't recognize unsourced assertions of connection to a notable group as enough to hold off a speedy. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I started off coming across as difficult, and I am potentially sounding difficult now as well by not just saying "yes, userfying is fine", so I apologize for that, and I'll clarify my intentions. I've spent time reviewing CSD candidates, I feel I know the criteria quite well, have speedied many myself... I've also oftentimes seen articles get deleted even though they did not strictly meet the criteria and I have said nothing, thinking "oh well, the article would likely get defeated at AfD anyway" and I did not want to come across as Wikilawyering. But, on reflection, I do not want to contribute to the problem so I decided I would speak up when I see it happening, since I am unsure how many of those articles might be saved if given some attention by others. CSD is intended to be for uncontroversial deletions. For these particular articles, which you speedyed under CSD A7, you emphasize that the assertions are unsourced. But CSD A7 says: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. (The assertion actually can be easily sourced, but that is not my main point here.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Restored and Userified to User:Paul_Erik/Girlsareshort and User:Paul_Erik/Al-P.
MUSIC criteria 6 is a terrible criteria and I routinely ignore it under IAR, because if honored in the way people who appeal to it want it to be honored, would do nothing but fill the encyclopedia with non-notable bands. Actually, I think I'll go delete it boldly at some point in the near future when I have more time, and see who all screams. First, if you read it carefully and in its entirety, all that Music#6 entitles anything to is a redirect to the notable band. In that band article, the non-notable former band or individual member can be covered per WP:NNC. If a separate article is to exist, then separate (independent, reliable) sourcing must exist to justify that separate article for that former band or individual member--that's not a WP:N issue, it's a WP:V issue. Now, having said that, if there's any other assertion of notability, sourced or not, such as national airplay or a charting single, I won't speedy the article. One of the problems this solves is infinite regress: Johnny makes it big and gets a grammy! Good for Johnny, he's notable. But Johnny was in 20 other never-went-anywhere bands before he made it big. Wow, they're now notable since Johnny is! Each of those 20 bands has an average 3 other otherwise non-notable members. But wait, they're now notable too! And yes, each of those 60+ otherwise unremarkable musicians was a member of N+1 other bands, who are, you guessed it, now notable! See how that gets absurd really fast? That's why I make a distinction between sourced and unsourced assertions of being in a notable band--if a reliable source has seen fit to note the connection, there's a much, much higher chance it's a legitimate notability claim and not just an accident of circumstance.
Regardless of whether or not you agree, does that make sense? Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well, it's a big red flag when a notability criterion goes out of its way to remind editors that "common sense exceptions always apply". Apparently that's there to prevent the very sort of problem that you are describing. So, yes, what you say makes sense and I agree with you for the most part. Still, all it takes to see that the Washington Post and NME saw fit to note the connection between Al-P, Girlsareshort and MSTRKRFT is to do a quick search on Google News before deleting. That's also the kind of thing that is more likely to come to light when articles—articles that do not clearly fit CSD criteria—are given attention in a deletion discussion than if they are just speedied away. I think there's general agreement that speedy-delete is supposed to be reserved for uncontroversial deletions. Typically it's problematic to speedy-delete by invoking WP:IAR. (I especially do not advise hiding a WP:IAR deletion underneath a deletion summary that says something else.) Your practice might even work against your goal of getting rid of WP:MUSICBIO criterion #6–if you let the articles go to AfD and editors start getting frustrated with having to deal with so many obviously non-notable bands in deletion discussions, you may be more likely to build consensus to get rid of the criterion.
Anyway, even if you are not the fan of Wikipedia:Process is important that I am, can you see where I'm coming from here? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm absolutely a fan of process... when and as it applies. I treat speedy deletion as summary judgement, though: if everything said in the article about itself were true, would it be kept in an AfD? Thus, when doing speedies I neither dispute sourcing, nor go looking for any new sourcing of my own. You can put those references you found in those articles and move them back at will... When I said *I* wouldn't put an article back into mainspace that I considered to be in a speedyable state, that doesn't restrict your ability to do so, nor will I go looking for a reason to delete them again, but I encourage you to add those sources to keep another assertive speedy patroller from deleting them a second time. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
All right. I can accept that. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your approach to these sorts of deletions. Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bookkeeping Associations request for restoration

Bookkeeping Associations request for restoration

This article was only up a few hours before it got deleted. It is required for the bookkeeping and other related articles to prevent a large list of bookkeeping associations being added to articles and making them unreadable. It is also required to explain what is a bookkeeping association. --NilssonDenver (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored it to your userspace at User:NilssonDenver/Bookkeeping associations. Please make improvements to it at that space, at least until it addresses WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I could restore it to userspace, but it would likely get deleted again, because it's really not ready for "prime time" (mainspace). Once you've made improvements to it in your userspace, feel free to move it back to its original location. If you need help assessing whether or not it's got enough content to exist in mainspace without being deleted, feel free to drop me a note. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you put it back now. I have made it a proper article. There is not much to it and it requires others to add more bookkeeping associations from around the world. But it is also vital for other bookkeeping articles to link to it. Thanks --NilssonDenver (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I could, but there really still aren't any references or independent sourcing to be more than a list of other organizations. I'd rather you worked on it a bit more, since it still fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like this article restores so that others can add the necessary information to it. It is no longer a list but reformatted to a relevant source of information about bookkeeping associations and their qualifications. Thanks NilssonDenver (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So, you can do the move at any time you want, but I have two suggestions before you do that: 1) clean up the table to restrict it to meaningful data--2/3rds of the table isn't saying anything. 2) Include some sources. What's there now looks reasonable, but please see WP:V for discussions on verifiability. Also, you can get the word out to other collaborators (e.g., through a Wikiproject) and enlist their help in improving the article even if it is in your userspace. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Contesting PROD

I want to contest this prod. WP:PROD says I should ask you and then go to DRV, though I've never seen any at DRV not speedily restored. Is WP:PROD out of date? WilyD 15:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh, and this one. WilyD 15:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • And this one. It's flippin' frustrating. Almost every bilateral pairing of relations can be easily established as notable, but a handful of users are hell-bent on their destruction anyhow. *sigh*. It's already ruined my interest in writing new articles and expanding old ones ... Anyways. WilyD 15:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • And [5]
  • this one, too. *sigh*. Sorry about all this. But since I'm "involved in the issue", I don't think I should do it myself unilaterially (though I'd restore J. Random Prod for anyone else who asked). If you don't object to the restoration, feel free to tell me "You do it" to save yourself the work. WilyD 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This one, too. :( WilyD 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I restore prods at will--I can't think of any time I've told someone to DRV rather than restoring a prod for them. Actually, you have my explicit permission to do so yourself, because I'm relatively busy for the next couple of days. Might be a good idea to restore them and take them straight to individual AfD's, since at least one mass-AfD was speedy closed. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
A second mass AFD has been started, and it's also a mess. I suspect if it works out favourably to the accounts looking to have these deleted, we'll end up seeing more (all of which will be a mess as well). But I'm happy enough to let those accounts do the AFD paperwork, and I'm a strong believer one should never open an AFD when they don't want an article deleted (which I don't). I'll do them one at a time, though, and demonstrate notability along the way (not that that has anything to do with whether there'll be an AFD :( ).
Incidentally, I also can't imagine refusing to restore a PROD. If I wasn't involved in a large dispute on the topic, I'd probably just have done it myself, but I'd rather not give any misdeeds to those who'd like to see me banned. :( WilyD 13:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ip user.


Earlier today, I reported This IP user for vandalism. It doesn't look like he has been blocked. I was wondering if you could find the reasoning for that. Thanks--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably because he only made 2 edits and was only warned once this entire year. A bit of vandalism here and there--especially the trivial, juvenile, obvious kind--is often better dealt with by simple reversion. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Hello Jclemens,

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindwipe (2nd nomination), you said you intended to improve the Mindwipe article before it got deleted. The article has been recreated recently. If you're still interested, any help improving it would be appreciated. In particular, it needs sourcing; the concerns that were raised in the deletion discussion should be addressed. Thanks and regards, Korg (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Unification Church political views

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Unification Church political views, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church political views. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Commented. Good AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Saba and Curaçao national football teams

Hiya, I wonder why you deleted these national teams, Saba plays in interislands competition along with Sint Eustatius and Bonaire, while Curaçao represented and was the precursor of the Netherlands Antilles. Jcmenal (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

They were both deleted by the WP:PROD process after five days of no one contesting the proposed deletion. In each case, the nominator's rationale should be shown in the deletion log, but as I recall, the assertion was that the teams were non notable or not official. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Banana Boat - the Polish musical group

Dear Jclemens, I have just received information from the Organizers of one of the international sea-shanty festivals that the link to the Wikipedia article on Banana Boat (the Polish musical band) is dead; I checked, and indeed, the article has been deleted because the group fails to meet the criteria of notability. I fully understand the principle, yet I would nonetheless very much appreciate it if you considered the uniqueness of the case. Sea-shanty and sea-song is a genre beloved by thousands of people all over the world, but musicians performing it represent a niche. Sea-song albums will never stand a chance of winning a Grammy or even a Gold: it is both incomparably smaller than other disciplinary niches of music and rarely ever promoted by the media. Nonetheless, Banana Boat, despite its being a Polish group, has been the first runner up to the 2005 Contemporary A Cappella Society of America CARA Award, which is the most prestigeous award in the a cappella world, it has released two albums and works on the third, and has won the hearts of audiences in a number of European countries and in the United States. I am mentioning all this because the deletion of the article - even though legitimate by the standards of Wikipedia notability criterion - might, after all, be an error: certain genres should not be gauged by the same critera as pop, rock, or jazz ensembles, for reasons mentioned above. I would very much appreciate your kind response, Yours, Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored and tagged for sourcing. All of what you say is fine, and none of it matters--the article needs independent coverage. Local papers, music magazines, news websites would all be good. Merely describing a group isn't enough basis, the facts must be verifiable through someone else's writings. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jclemens, thank you very much; I'll do my best to do some digging on the www to find references to the groups concerts outside of Poland, but I guess trying to find material covering the past decade internationally might be quite a challenge :-) especially that music press does not take any interest in maritime music and local press might no longer be available. I know that there have been articles in German press in Vegesack, I know of articles in local press in Paimpol, France or Cobh, Ireland, but getting hold of them might be a problem. International websites of individual festivals and playlists on BBC3 might be easier, but I am not sure if these would qualify. Please, advise. Yours, Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

En.wikipedia prefers English sources, but non-English sources news are better than none, and meet the minimum requirements. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear JClemens, I have appended the article with external references, but I am still waiting for my partners in Ireland, Germany and France to respond to my call for scans of newspaper articles concerning Banana Boat. I wanted to inquire whether in case of lack of success in retrieving scans the information already provided is would meet the minimum requirements as discussed above or whether I should seek out references in the information and festival portals on the World Wide Web and add the links to the external links section? Happy Easter! Paweł Jędrzejko (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's looking better, but it won't win any Wikipedia awards... at least not this week. If you can learn to use inline citations, and the WP:CITET templates, that will improve the presentation and appearance of your existing citations. More are always good, but making what you have look better helps too. At this point, I expect it's out of danger of being deleted, though. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


CPR Barnstar.png The Barnstar of Recovery
I am honored to award you this barnstar for you continued efforts all accross wikipedia, and more importantly for your rescues of articles when nominators fail in their consideration of WP:ATD, thus forcing it to be some other editor's WP:AFTER. Thank you for being an exemplary Wikipedian... and one always working toward the true improvement of the project. Well done! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It's nice to be recognized for the quiet mundaneness of fixing up articles. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Often not quiet... and not always mundane, such efforts deserve to be recognized as continuing the improvement of wiki. To quote an old politician, "any jackass can kick down a door, but it takes a skilled carpenter to build one." Your work is appreciated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm your Nostalgia editor!

I process-wonk so you don't have to!

Seriously, I should point out that Project Jedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had survived a AfD and was thus technically ineligible for PROD. Just coming from a friendly voice before the legions of Hell swarm at your gate talk page. :) Sceptre (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that it did. I see a vfd in 2005, but aside from the renaming of the process, I just don't see that being an automatic bar to a prod. I'll restore it if someone wants it back, but I don't see that an AfD multiple years in the past would be an automatic bar to a prod: Common sense dictates that is an unreasonable outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Hase mit Ostereiern (2).jpg

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Request undeletion of Practical Devices Corporation

Could you undelete Practical Devices Corporation? I am almost entirely sure that this is the place to request this. Mark Forest (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're correct--this is the correct venue and that was the correct format. It's been restored. Feel free to add information that helps demonstrate notability for the company, to avoid future problems. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Request undeletion of ElCoP

Could you undelete ElCoP? I don't know the reason why it has been deleted.. :( --JustusD (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored. There was a WP:PROD placed on it for notability. Unfortunately, the reason for the prod didn't appear to have gotten copied into the deletion log--my apologies. At any rate, feel free to add more information and improve it from its current state. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeking your expertise

You have a great skill at locating reviews in sources not usually covered by Google. Care to help find such for Colby's Clubhouse? Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

On it. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You know, I just really can't find very much on this. It's mostly predating user-generated content, and the kids aren't likely to write stuff in RS'es on their own. :-( Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Identity Assurance Framework Page - Please Restore

Hello, Please restore the Identity Assurance Framework page: 04:29, 20 March 2009 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "Identity Assurance Framework" ‎ (Expired PROD: Substantial copy of

I have already had the discussion with another admin to explain that this is not copyright infringement. I am not sure what further action I need to take. When I last checked the page in April all seemed to be fine. Could you also please look at the talk page for that article? Or my own talk page:

I apologize if I have formed this request incorrectly. I am admittedly new to wikipedia editing. However, we believed IN GOOD FAITH that there were no further issues with our article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanbrennan (talkcontribs) 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, restoration in progress. Please feel free to rephrase it even more, or look at WP:IOWN for how to grant permission to use content to which you own the copyright. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. Been a while since we've worked together! Don't know if you're still reviewing GAs or if you'd like to participate in any. After your review of Gary Gygax and Wizards of the Coast, this year we got Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. Stop on by and say Hi, and we're always looking for new nominations to consider.

Don't know if you do comics too, but we've been working on GAs for that project as well, and have Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, LGBT themes in comics, Hergé, and Pride & Joy (comics) so far. Happy editing! :) BOZ (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've been editing the various current Joss Whedon comics as they come out, but I'm not a super comics fanboy, I'm afraid. I just dabble a bit. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No biggie, but appreciated - check out the D&D stuff when you get a chance, and we're always trying to get more promoted. BOZ (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jumping

Well, as it appears that no one else is interested in mediation - I am the only one to sign up for it since its inception - and also that the arguments for removal are pretty much incontrovertible, I made the change. It would also appear that those who want the change aren't really piping up, so long as their preferred version remains in place. I am not going to be silent and thusly silently assent to an edit that I know to be crufty, synthetic and unnecessary. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize reiterating the well-detailed arguments from the talk page was required for a MedCab case. I can do that if needed, but I still believe we are at a good-faith impasse. I acknowledge that you believe in good faith that your interpretation is correct, while at the same time maintaining that it, in fact, incorrect. Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Not asking you (or anyone else) to detail your arguments. Just add your name to the mediation case, and wait. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


I did some major trimming to the article and added sources. And have now just found and added multiple awards from various organizations... 2005: Aegis Awards Winners and finalists recognition[6], 2006: two awards at the 27th annual Telly Awards[7], 2007: they won a Radio-Television News Directors Association of the Carolinas (RTNDAC) Award for "Best Student Television Newscast".[8], 2008: Three awards at the 29th annual Telly Awards[9], and the 2009 Broadcast Education Association awards[10][11]. I think it has enough independent notability after being trimmed and properly sourced to exist as a stand-alone. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool

What happened to the Political Cesspool's WIKI page? --rock8591 09:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted about six weeks ago based on the WP:PROD process: someone tagged it for a proposed deletion, and five days later (after no one had removed it), I deleted the article as an uncontested deletion. Are you asking for it to be restored? Jclemens (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussion

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AGAST, which you previously deleted as an expired Prod. DGG (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets stacking discussions

In case you haven't seen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JamesBurns: Socking ...and_more, because of these CheckUser results it has come to light that there has been some sockpuppetry at AFD in several discussions. I'm helping with the task of revisiting all of the AFD discussions listed here. Please review your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loose Cannon: The Cut Off, where a sockpuppet account of the nominator was used to simulate "more thorough discussion", in light of the new evidence. Uncle G (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Both articles restored and AfD's reclosed as procedural keeps. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Thank you. There may well be more to come. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Veronica Mars

Hey again; long time no talk! :) Anyways, I just wanted to tell you about Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Seasons of Veronica Mars! Yes, we finally got there! I'm not sure if you were aware of what was going on, but I had been quite busy with the three FLCs. And don't worry, I didn't forget to give you some credit. ;) 07:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I really haven't done all that much lately. I've been working on school sufficiently hard that I've really only been doing the occasional article rescue. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Darby O' Gill and the Little People (band)

Just got back into the country and I found that the article for Darby O'Gill and the Little People (band) page was deleted. I'll freely admit that I should have kept a closer eye on my watchlist, but my time online was limited. Could I get a copy of the markup (or at least content) of the article from you please? I'm not going to just blindly recreate the article, but there is more information that I had intended to add to it when I got settled back in, and it'd be nice to have a starting point again when I have the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaidinBDJ (talkcontribs) 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It was just a PROD, so I went ahead and restored it and tagged it for notability. If you can expand it in place, please do so. OR, if you don't have the time to do so, you can move it to your userspace and leave it there, your call. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of deleted article?

Hi Jclemens, As an admin, you can see deleted pages, Hacker Halted was deleted under CSD G11. Can you take a look and tell me your opinion? is it blatant advertising? If so, how could I improve it? Your speedy assistance would be appreciated. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it was a listing of past conferences, and then the last third read like a straight pull out from a conference brochure, including the flowery language and promises with the "for more information contact..." Looks like a solid G11 to me: even if the event can probably be covered in a legitimate article, this wasn't it. You can ask the deleting admin to make you a userspace copy ("userify" it) for you to fix up before putting it back in mainspace. I can do it too if the deleting admin isn't responsive. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask him when he gets back to me. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Help needed :-(

Dear Jclemens, please allow me to disturb you again; I have been trying to consistently improve the Banana Boat article by introducing citations, but I must have done something wrong with the syntax... I am still learning. Would you please be so kind and help me correct my errors? Also, since I have already taken steps to recovers scans of articles on Banana Boat in international press and, this year, am going to make sure that I collect all upcoming articles concerning the group, might we remove the listing for deletion? Thank you for your patience, yours, Paweł Jędrzejko (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what the issue is: the {{cite web}} template needs a url= parameter--if there is a link, just put it in, with the full http:// syntax, right after the url= and before the next |. If there isn't one, delete the url=| parameter and use {{cite news}} instead, where a link is optional. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you very much, let me introduce corrections right away! Indeed, the two sources quoted are printed sources, there is no link! Would the citations I have introduced so far suffice? Yours, Paweł Jędrzejko (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jclemens, please, bear with me, one last question: are the citations (of which there will be more as soon as I have gained access to scans of articles or archived websites) adequate and would they be sufficient to take the article off the "endangered" list? Thank you in advance for all possible suggestions! Yours, Paweł Jędrzejko (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A question concerning images

Dear Jclemens, is it possible to use images existing in multilingual versions of Wikipedia to illustrate articles I translate or write? How is it done? Whenever I tried, I was always prompted to submit the image, even though Wikimedia Commons already lists images posted in articles in languages others than those I create. How should I go about this? With many thanks, Paweł Jędrzejko (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Imagename works to pull images from both Wikimedia Commons or from en.wikipedia. If the file is already uploaded to commons, it should be able to be linked. What is the image name on commons? Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jclemens, thank you sooo much for your quick response. The image I need for an article I am now working on is that of Herman Melville. What would be the proper syntax to use these images in the Polish Wiki? My gratitude is endless! Paweł Jędrzejko (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not too much of an image expert, but I believe that images must be uploaded to each Wikipedia, or pulled from commons. Commons is the way to share files between Wikipedias, but not every image can go on commons. It may be best to upload the image to both English and Polish wikipedias. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is what I thought; the problem, however, is that of licensing: can I download an image from Commons and then upload it again to respective Wikipedias? And, if so, do I simply copy license information? Am at a bit of a loss :-) Thank you very, very much! Paweł Jędrzejko (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the filename on Wikimedia Commons you want to use? Let me take a look at it. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jclemens, the image I have a problem pulling up is THIS - nominally, the licencing of the photograph should not be a problem, but I know for a fact that the use of this picture cost me almost 200 dollars when I used it in my book on Melville. Therefore, 1) I am not sure if indeed it is license-free, or perhaps whether the low-res image is license-free for Internet applications and 2) I am not certain why I have a problem pulling it up for inclusion in the Polish WIKI. I would very much appreciate your kind advice! Yours, Paweł Jędrzejko (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


RE: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron:Userfication notice when editors attempt to create a new article, which you commented on. Ikip (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Smiley.svg Thank you for taking the time to comment. Ikip (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Rescuebarnstar.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion.

This barnstar is awarded to Jclemens for his incredible work on Yellow Star (Book). You are a true asset to the project, wikipedia is blessed to have such a diligent editor. Ikip (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks, but I'm not even done yet. If I put a few more reviews in, I'll see if I can get a 5x expansion and a DYK out of it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI and the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) article

I think it best if another mediator is contacted, and resolution of the content issues pursued. I do not believe that the ANI discussion is going to advance any further and it may be best to step back from the article until some resolution is achieved. I am copying this message to the other two article contributors who posted to ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and effort. I'm in no particular rush, but am still hanging around to seek the resolution of the content issues. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

George Carlin

If I can find a source for this quote by George Carlin will you post it on his article?

"there might be some sort of an organizing intelligence, and I think to understand it is way beyond our ability. It's certainly not a judgmental entity. It's certainly not paternalistic and all these qualities that have been attributed to God. It's probably a dispassionate... That's why I say, "Suppose He doesn't give a shit? Suppose there is a God but He just doesn't give a shit?" That's the kind of thing that might be at work." --Georgelives (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you do it? If it's edit protected, gain consensus for it at his article's talk page. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I was pretty much told that it didn't matter how well I cited the Quote some editors don't like it and they plan to ban me for good if I post it again. --Georgelives (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
So it sounds like you need to work with the existing editors who have a stake in that article, rather than trying to find an outside person to intervene and include by fiat what you've failed to convince others--so far--merits inclusion. How is that going to improve the encyclopedia? Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I tried working with them but they threw every excuse at me for it not being included. Check my edit history for yourself if you want to. As for how it would improve the encyclopedia well I always thought Carlin was 100% pure atheist meaning he simply didn't believe in anything people couldn't detect with the 5 senses. Then I heard him say something along the lines of the quote above. It is without a doubt of note that Carlin had a "belief system" so we should include his words on this system in his article. --Georgelives (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Radio Racer

I was just wondering if i could get back a copy of what was deleted. I was making a page for them due to the tact that they had just recently signed on with IN-n-OUT records and are being sold around the world, so i thought this was a good idea. Thank you if you can get it back to me or put it back up. Michael Jones (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done User:Truidor/Radio Racer. Please be sure to read WP:MUSICBIO to understand what needs to be sourced for the band to be included in Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Common outcomes

Hi there - sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I'm a bit all over the place in real life at the moment, so I missed several things going on. Anyway, I reverted again, and took it to the talk page per WP:BRD - I think it's interesting, but perhaps better for inclusion in WP:BIO? In my experience, this is not a common AfD outcome. Anyway, I've written in more detail on the talk page so we can take the discussion there. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Now it's MY turn to be busy, so I may not be responding immediately. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Banana Boat - inline citations added

Dear Jclemens, I have added inline citations as well as literature of the subject; work is still in progress, because I have not yet managed to access press articles published in the past, but step by step the external reasources are being added. Just to let you know, I describe additions on the article's talk page. Yours, Paweł Jędrzejko (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pawel, it looks like you are making good progress--the article is now better than many other U.S.- or U.K.-based bands. Keep up the good work! Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jclemens, do you think we could remove some of the issues on the "multiple issues" label? P.S.: I have successfully dealt with the problem of pulling Herman Melville's pictures from the Commons! Many thanks! Yours, Paweł Jędrzejko (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million! Work continues! Paweł Jędrzejko (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Yellow Star (book)

Updated DYK query On May 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yellow Star (book), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

\ / () 09:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


Per Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#A discussion of interest., could you offer an opinion on what should be done? Propose, drop, etc. -- Banjeboi 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but I can't think of any reason why anyone would want to include material that could cause pain to living people unless it was a political thing. Wikipedia should be better than that. Talking of forum shopping, I've mentioned this at WP:ANI because I think we need more eyes on it. Black Kite 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to refactor your comment at the AfD. AniMatetalk 04:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm open to doing so... but why? Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Saint Pancake is clearly an offensive name, at least according to the reference from Salon that you keep quoting. Making a flippant joke about it is beyond bad form. AniMatetalk 04:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you even understand the point of the epithet? Explain to me what you think people mean by Saint Pancake. Hint: it's not generally a critique of Corrie. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll take the hint--you want to suggest she's only notable for the way in which she died, while crituiqing the way "the media" sanctify young, beautiful American women? Something like that? (I have not read the Salon article.) "Saint" is one thing, but "Pancake" is really beyond the pale. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That's actually closer than I expected AniMate to get. Yes, it's a critique of the establishment latching on to one particular person who died in a pretty gruesome way, but was singled out for a secular beatification because of it. Plenty of young people die every year, but yet this one unfortunate young woman who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, is somehow more special than the vast majority of the others who also exercised poor decision making. It mystifies me why people think "pancake" is the more offensive half of the epithet; it's certainly the part more grounded in reality, and an immediate reminder of the gruesome nature of Corrie's manner of death. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well thank you for condescending to stupid old me. Glad a smart person came along to save me from making an ass out of myself. --AniMatetalk 04:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hardly, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm assuming good faith in that if you understood the point beind the epithet, you'd not find it nearly so offensive. Based on your reactions to it, I sincerely believed you had no clue. Are you saying I'm incorrect, and that you already understood Saint Pancake in the way that I explained it? If so, then why is it so offensive to you in light of that explanation? Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The main reason I'm struggling with the decision whether or not to strike Saint Pancake from the AfD is fundamentally the Streisand Effect. If it were something I'd accidentally said that offended people, I'd be quite inclined to remove it. As is, it's a verifiable and reliably sourced epithet, that despite meeting every guideline for inclusion (if you disagree, rebut on Talk:Rachel Corrie, not here), has been censored by people who don't want the fact that Corrie was ever called Saint Pancake mentioned. That is, if there are N reliable sources, N+1 will always be necessary. AniMate has explicitly stated that it should never be included under any circumstances. So, I'll offer a trade. AniMate, if you're willing to support a single mention of the term "Saint Pancake" in the criticism section of the Rachel Corrie article or its successors, for as long as you participate in Wikipedia in any form, I'll strike my comment from the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, too late now. It's been SNOW'ed closed--not exactly an unexpected outcome, was it? At any rate, even if I wanted to, it would be impossible for me to remove the offensive comment. Well, if Rachel Corrie were living, BLP might take precedence over AfD processes... but she's not. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You can still remove it after the AFD is closed. The fact that you haven't, and appear to take pleasure in using the epithet for no particular reason (it certainly didn't need to appear in the AfD) at least means there's no longer any debate about your motivations for wanting to include it. Black Kite 08:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There never was any debate at all: WP:NOTCENSORED. Any assumptions otherwise rely on assuming bad faith and nefarious interpretations of perfectly straightforward actions. Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 08:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for LMFAO (band)

this is a notable band, if barely. speedy deletion was not warranted. please see or

Nothing in that article, as it was when it was deleted, asserted anything that met any of the WP:BAND criteria. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
actually, one of the sources was . if you check, they have had 2 albums on interscope records. that meets criterion 5 of WP:BAND, i believe. please undelete it and let it go through the regular AFD process. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The article, at the time it was deleted, did not assert ANY releases on Interscope--just that they were signed to them and had released an album on iTunes. I do not follow references looking to ascertain notability one way or the other: if the assertion of notability isn't explicitly in the article, it isn't relevant. Note, however, that like all A7 deletions, there's no prejudice against recreating the article. If you'd like it userified, I can do that for you, too, but I don't put articles back into mainspace in a state where another admin could come along speedy delete 'em in good faith. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, following that up, of the 2 releases, only one is an album; the other is a single. So, doesn't look like they're actually meeting criterion 5 yet, either. So it's looking like userification is probably the way to go until they've clearly established notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
as far as significance or notability goes, LMFAO seems like it could go either way, not too heavily leaning towards notable or non-notable, hence i think you've speedied it erroneously. there are multiple semi-maybe-trivial references about the band on the web and in google news, such as,,,, etc. at the very least, it should have been AfD'd. please undelete it and allow it to go through afd, as it should have originally. it is a borderline case, not an obvious candidate Theserialcomma (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
How about I userify it for you, you add those refs, and then you move it back to mainspace once it clearly asserts notability? Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
ok Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like someone else did this a few days ago. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Physician Assistant

Dear Jclemens, Please provide a reason the standardized curriculum of accredited programs is reverted.Erinsherer (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sockpuppet,
Because you have consistently engaged in disruptive editing and block evasion, everything you add will be reverted on sight as inherent vandalism, until and unless a source is cited for the change. Still, even if you do that, your account will be blocked as a sockpuppet. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


has been reverting four different editors on Business Plot and related pages. 20:52 7 May 23:56 01:03 8 May 20:53 (corrected) Making 4RR in 24 hours and one minute (correcred per Annoynmous disoputing 7RR in just over 48 hours( 01:38 9 May 18:19 23:15 (hitting, as I count it, 7 RR in barely over 48 hours) 23:59 7 May 23:16 9 May 20:32 7 May (stubbing an article from 3K to under 1K in size) which I understand may count as a substantial revert 06:00 8 May 15:03 8 May (making 3RR here as well)

Collect (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. So is there a reason you brought this to me, rather than WP:AN3? I almost never give out 3RR blocks; most of my admin time is spent deleting prods, speedies, and RBI'ing new socks. Jclemens (talk)
I only reported it as I do not really believe blocks do much, but I wanted it to be on the record about his actions. Note below his claim that he has made zero reverts <g>. In fact, I do not recall actually posting on 3RR as a result of this belief. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Annoynmous accused me of lying -- it was the first 24 hours he hit 4RR in, and not the second 22 hours with only 3RR on the same article. I regret the error, but it still shows the violations. And this time since he openly accused me of lying, I should like him given a stern warning. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have a near record of 5 blocks at least for 3RR and another dozen complaints. Collect (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect is flat out lying, I have not once reverted another editor in less that 24 hours on the Business Plot article. If he wants to debate me on the issues that's fine, but making false accusations is uncalled for. annoynmous 01:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to just post some of collects supposed evidence that I violated the 3RR

[15] 23:53 8 May [16] 01:38 9 May [17] 18:19 [18] 23:15

That looks bad except for the fact that first edit occured at 20:53, not 23:53. Collect distorted the first edit to make it look it was 4 edits in 24 hours.
As For the Smedley Butler and Gerald Macquire articles, I find it odd how I could have violated the 3rr when I've only made a total of 3 reverts so far on each of those articles. annoynmous 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Might you read WP:3RR to see what is considered a revert? I suggest that you hvae, indeed, repeatedly violated the letter and spirit of the rule. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 4:08 10 May

Making 4 RR in 24 hourrs, then another 4RR in 27 hours. Seems a bit too much to me. Collect (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Support your proposal. Additionally I've noted on their talk page a 1RR probation generally for a while. Any thoughts on that? Cheers, Nja247 08:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi Jclemens. I'm doing RC patrol and ran across a new article Jason Jones (Humanitarian Filmmaker) that overlapped an existing bio of the same person, Jason Jones (pro-life activist). Bio here confirms they are identical person. Same person, old vs: new article, noncontroversial merge, right? Apparently there's a newbie editor User:VeritasRanch who first wanted them to be different people, and now keeps redirecting the old article to the new one. BTW, I followed WP:MERGE but it was immediately reverted. Any suggestions? Thanks, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 21:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

  • FYI, the issue was posted to WP:BLPN by Beeblebrox, I posted to the author's talk page, then reinstated the merge once. Will let it sit for now pending other editor comment at BLPN. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 22:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
So, without reading the talk pages why the objection? Sounds like it might be a POV issue to me--someone doesn't want him called pro-life, since it's a polarizing term, maybe? I note that Jason Jones (activist) and Jason Jones (filmmaker) are neither in use. Each would be an NPOV improvement over both the article titles you've listed above. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


I'd be OK with that, except that you've now claimed that "Saint Pancake" isn't an attack on her - despite the fact that every mention of it is in disparaging terms, or attacking it for being such. If you can withdraw the claim that it isn't an attack, I'd be happy to not mention the DRV. Black Kite 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I've no problem with you trying to rebut the DRV, but on a side issue, can you give me some examples of where the term isn't being used as a disparagement or attack? I'm genuinely interested. Black Kite 21:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
A note to both of you. When filing this RfC we want to make sure that it is accessible to the people coming to comment. If we overwhelm them with a ton of evidence, no one is actually going to comment. In my experience, RfCs don't actually generate that much traffic, so we should try our hardest to make the issues as simple as possible to understand rather than writing four or five long paragraphs rehashing every debate that has gone on in that page or in the DRV. AniMatedraw 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


Then you might want to help in finding a new mediator. Were I a less-trusting individual, I would suspect that those in favor of keeping in the material that I don't think should be anywhere near the article would be delighted to have this thing drag on. While I am not going to presume that, please understand that - outside of a mediation satisfying my issues with the inclusion, I am not going to forget about the matter, and it needs to be decided. I am not willing to wait to let the matter lapse. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Content_dispute_resolution#View_by_Jclemens, where I used this very situation as part of what I think is wrong with dispute resolution as it exists today. Did you ever check out the possible source at Talk:Daybreak_(Battlestar_Galactica)#Possible_.22High_Flight.22_source.3F? I haven't seen you comment on it. As far as a mediator, what criteria would you like to propose in selecting a neutral, yet eminently experienced, third party? Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually did see that link, and had found the link decisively unimpressive. The blogger thought we were quoting Reagan, who appropriated it from Magee. Plus, the line of dialogue isn't a quote of either source. I didn't speak up because you had mentioned this blog before, and I had seen and thought it unusable,
As well, I have read the RfC regarding content dispute resolution. I agree with your viewpoint. If anything, I would make it a requirement that ArbCom members and crats mediate such issues at least once a month. I'd extend it to admins, but I think we both know of admins who shouldn't really hold a mop, much less weigh in on content issues. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There's actually a pretty compelling case that the Anders line is quoting Reagan quoting Magee, rather than the poem directly--Reagan's speechwritter cobbled the first and last lines together before, in the context an event many older sci-fi geeks are never going to forget. At any rate, I do keep looking for better sources occasionally. So... what criteria should we use for recruiting a previously uninvolved content arbitrator? Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not particularly compelled by the argument, J. As for the choice of a mediator, I would suggest we solicit someone from ArbCom. They usually tend to have their heads screwed on right. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well, I probably have more of a background in source criticism than you do, and that argument is a thousand times stronger than most of what passes for scholarship in that field. :-) I will submit to binding arbitration by any member of Arbcom. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Sidestepping your claims of superior background (that sort of discussion never ends well), I wasn't intimating that we need to head to ArbCom. I was suggesting that getting someone from ArbCom to act as mediator for the absent Erik the Bike Guy would be good. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh. I wouldn't call it superior background. I've just had to put up with a lot of things asserted on far flimsier evidence. No, I wasn't saying "arbcom", but agreeing to "any arbcom member" acting as a sole mediator. If you can talk one of them into it, I'll agree to be bound by the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I never doubted that you wouldn't abide by such a mediation, J. :)
You did note how Matthew's large edits pretty much negated one of the points of contention, yes? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, I hadn't. I'm going to stick to the poem, really, as words on a page are more concrete than robot models. I'd not mind asking for a ruling on that one too, once we've got a mediator's attention, but I never added that info in or reverted its removal, and I see no particular reason to start now. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


RE: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#.22Article_Purgatory.22_proposal_at_WT:AfD thank you for being the first person to bring up policy during these arguments. Ikip (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem... I take it you like the idea? :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


In Talk:Business Plot is asserting that his topic ban is for only two months, and that he has no other restrictions as he made a "deal." I did not see it, and as he removed your topic ban from his user talk page I was slightly astonished. [12] Collect (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If he's behaving himself and working for consensus on the talk page for two months, I would have lifted it anyways. If he's not, he'll probably have gotten in more trouble between now and then, so there's no real point in making a big deal about it. Blocks are not punitive, they're supposed to be increasingly (yet proportionately) severe corrective action in order to encourage collaborative and harmonious editing. Even if he disagrees with you and everyone else, if he's being nice about it, there's no reason for him to continue to be topic banned. Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) mediation.

Hi J.,

I've offered to mediate Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-14/Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica), a dispute to which you are a party. I'd like to offer you the opportunity to object to my involvement in the dispute before I proceed, and would thus request that you assent or dissent on the case page.

Looking forward to working with you,

AGK 13:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Proded Article

I came across Demolition Pumpkin Squeeze Musik and saw that you had deleted it after a prod for being Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. It did have some media coverage as a google search shows. While I am not sure whether this is significant enough to undelete the article. Here are some other links:

I'm not sure if there is enough media coverage to warrent undeletion, but I wanted you to have a second look. Thank you.Smallman12q (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Restored. Feel free to go ahead and add those sources in. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!(Could you also restore the talk page too?)Smallman12q (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Aboulaye Armin kane

Hi J.,

I tried to improve the biographie of this senegalese artist, he is an important contemporary African artist. Please can we give him the chance to appear in Wikipedia? Thanks, --Ira Nal27 (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please wikilink to the deleted article so I don't have to go searching for it, and I'd be happy to restore it to somewhere you can work on it. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


I just prod'd this sod's law you had taken off prod a couple of hours before! It just occurred to me.

There's no point us going around the houses and I was perhaps in haste (the move was good) but basically the minimal information there was added by myself. My guess would be that the original creator was related to this publication in some way but has not made any attempt to add anything useful.

If you want to undo my prod I shan't take offence. As an inclusionist I can't see it doing any harm being here, but also it does seem a bit of a hole in the air.

If you want to move this message to the talk page of the article please do.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per the prod rules, no one should be prodding an article a second time--it should go to AfD directly instead. Not a big deal at all, it will probably be deleted there, I just felt it needed a little more opportunity for discussion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Google indexing

Here's an example. Google search of the Wikipedia space - look at the second hit. Awkward because the articles were deleted over after AfD, but too dramatic to do anything about it. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well that's certainly a problem. Why the heck is user space indexed?! Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

APA position on homosexuality

Please come here to comment again on this issue. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrie RfC

I'm afraid I can't take part in the RfC, due to a recent ArbCom restriction NoCal100 (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. My apologies for the irrelevent notice. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Unusual speedy deletes


I see you just speedy deleted two pages I de-prodded, namely Kacey Jones & Naked Fame. I de-prodded them because my research showed that both did meet our GNG. Kacey Jones had no real content, so no loss there - I can always just recreate the article with some real content at a later date. Naked Fame, however had some content (not a lot, but some) and wasn't even a BLP so I'm not sure why you deleted it as a "unsourced negative BLP." If you could please undelete the article I will be happy to add a source to confirm that the documentary is about exactly what the article said it was about. I will also add some info on the NY Times and others notable critic commentary about the movie. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to userify both. The Naked Fame article asserted, without sourcing, that a living individual was at one time a porn star--which is something that a "reasonable person" could find offensive if untrue. Agree that there wasn't much to Kacey Jones, but the primary problem with that article is that it was left in a spot where it had no assertion of notability, regardless of how much there may have been available outside the article. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Both userified to User:ThaddeusB/Kacey Jones and User:ThaddeusB/Naked Fame. Please do prioritize adding sources to the film article. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will add sources to Naked Fame within 24 hours. I do agree that the Kacey article has no assertion of notability & so was justified to be speedied. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads Up

Your edit history with DremGuy are mentioned as part of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:DreamGuy and User: (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? I didn't see anything calling me out by name. I don't see a good reason to wade in there, but thanks. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The easiest path

Dear Jclemens,

I am writing to you because you have completely deleted my entry contact hyperthermia. I have done an awfull effort to do this page. Anyways, I won´t do it again. People like you just pull off our willingness to back up the Wikipedia project. If you know so much about medicine and physical therapy, you should consider contributing with your knownledge in the search of new bibliography, if that is the reason why you argument deletion, instead of simply cancelling others work in a click of an eye. Removing this page takes away the possibility to many people to know more about the body´s self-healing process, instead of taking drugs and medicines which may be harmful for some patients. Unfortunately, you do not have the knownledge to value scientific back-up on this item. If you had, you should already know the condensor field since the XIXth Century, with more than 100 years scientific evidence. Anyways, it is useless to talk anymore, once everything has been erased. Deletion is a way to control stupid things being published, not to ban articles which could need an improvement, but which do not deserve being erased. I wish you will never need this type of knownledge in your life anytime to get cured of any illness. I will not waist my time anymore in Wikipedia, do not worry any more. Best Regards, -- (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Userify request

Hey can you userify Malik Jackson to User:Giants27/Malik Jackson because he was recently signed by the Calgary Stampeders and is now notable. Thanks!--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 21:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done It was just deleted via PROD, so I put it back right where it was--you can work on it there. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd seen everything...

... but clearly not. Considering this editor even bolded his "Oppose" in this edit ... by the way, I agree that consensus is not necessarily numbers - but there has to be a good reason why it isn't, so I hope you're not making that point for a reason ... Black Kite 01:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you'd added DGG to the support column, as he bolded his support as well, your edit would have looked less partisan. Rather than a tit-for-tat, I thought it better to back off of us counting other people's opinions for them entirely. Thanks for bringing it up here, and thanks for redacting your initial comment. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar Meyer (Wrestler)

Just noticed your closing rationale about G4. There's currently a discussion at WT:CSD on whether or not CSD G4 applies to articles speedy deleted during an AFD. You didn't specify a criteria in your closing rationale but closing it after one day as a "hoax" suggests G3.

I haven't decided what my opinion about this is yet but I have tagged such articles G4 before without any problem. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

With a 5 to 0 "delete" at the moment I reviewed it as a CSD, I made an executive decision that it should be 1) gone as of then, and 2) not be "penalized" by my shortcutting of the process to deliver an encyclopedia-building (or encyclopedia-thwarter-thwarting, if you prefer). I could have just !voted delete and it would have been SNOW'ed by the next administrator who noticed it, with full G4 enforcement, so I opted to give it the immediacy of a speedy and the precedent of an AfD close. I'm pretty comfortable defending that stance at DRV, should it come to that, but I would hope common sense would render that unnecessary. At any rate, that's my thought process behind it. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Question/Request regarding Vicki Allen deletion

I recently posted an entry about Louisiana author Vicki Allen, which was taken down based on G12. The message received was this:

Vicki Allen From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference. • 00:37, 29 May 2009 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "Vicki Allen" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of

This was my first post so I'm a bit confused. I had requested a Wiki mentor but never heard back from the folks I contacted. Would you be able to clarify for me?

I posted this on behalf--and with permission from--Vicki Allen. It looks like the G12 tag is somehow related to media materials posted on Because her fourth (and most recent) novel hit bookstores in April, and she is traveling the country with book signing events and I posted media materials on Again on Allen's behalf and with her permission. The media materials--specifically Allen's bio--contain much of the same language. I edited the Wiki post, though, attempting to conform with Wiki guidelines. All copy was written by me for her.

Does this clear up the copyright violation issue? Would you consider helping me to edit the entry rather than deleting it?


RobinTracyPRRobinTracyPR (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Robin, sorry about the confusion. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that respects all others' copyrights. If you'd like to reuse text from elsewhere, you can 1) add an appropraite license tag to the web page stating that it can be used, or 2) submit documentation that you specifically grant permission. WP:IOWN is the policy page that will lead you to more detailed instructions. Apologies about the hassle, but we really have no way of verifying that you are the author of that text, absent such statements are communications. It would be relatively easy for anyone to claim to be you, and we wouldn't want to violate your (or anyone's) copyrights based on such a ruse. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead to article on Baptismal regeneration

You were probably right about my edit; it may well have confused "baptismal regeneration" with a more Restoration Movement approach. I was trying to moderate a prior round of edits from an anonymous user that seemed to me to run the risk of "taking sides" on the issue. I've taken out the once sentence that gave me the most heartburn "It is the historic and ecumenical belief and practice of the Christian church, and has been rejected only by those whom the church regards as sects" and added a section to the talk page on the article to explain my concern. If you get a chance, could you drop by and check the tone now? Having flagged it for review, I'll defer to your judgment - I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this area. EastTN (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that removal. That part was pretty POV, even if most Restoration Movement folks would agree with it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for tagging Koeschoe (talk · contribs) as being a sock of SgtAvestrand1956 (talk · contribs). From the seemingly random (but equally bad) string of edits performed by this person last night, I knew they were a sock of some banned editor, but I had no clue whom it might have been. Regardless, thank you for your quick catch! — Kralizec! (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. All you have to do is look back at the history of that article for blocked folks. He's been blocked 4-5 times, mostly by me so far, and has a thing for the PA article. Weird. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

When an octopus becomes upset, it may eat itself

Neat! You're the first person I've seen to use that "Wikipedia broken down" image to show that he needs to improve the red wedge, instead of cutting down everything else to make the wedge look better by comparison. If we offer even the most rudimentary of search tools, it's not like the US villages with populations of 3 hinder readers from finding what they want.

I happened to come here because was observing Tyrenon. A topic ban is tough, but I get its necessity. In my observances, that are entirely too brief to be representative, he's been polite, constructive, and entirely clueless about what a massive wave of deletion regardless of actual article merits would do to an online community that depends on goodwill to survive. I really need to gain the 20 IQ points needed to write an essay about the fact that this is a community between people and the rules should be tools to help that. (We had Wikipedia:Editing policy, now the politicians have arrived.) Then we'd have to go slap some sense into the deletionists if newbies are getting the idea that this is appropriate behaviour. *sigh* Thanks for taking stuff on your shoulders.

You know more about our fire, medical & emergency coverage than me. Are you aware of any sort of article on children and fire? That's definitely worth one, what with playing with matches, hiding from fires, etc. etc. (If you're not: dibs.) Summer's rolling in again, so I'll be directing most of my efforts into improving our article on sex in space to keep me away from Wikipedia at my summer job, but I'd also like to create something useful. --Kizor 18:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban in Tyrenon's case is ideally just to get him to slow down, take care of things that don't need AfD himself, and use less time-consuming deletion processes. Actually, since he appears to be offline, I'll probably expand on this on his talk page when I get a bit of free time.
I haven't looked for an article on children and fire, but I'll be happy to help you with one. Juvenile fire setter might be a good topic, but there's probably several good ways to split up "kids and fire" into distinct articles. Best wishes, and keep me posted! Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you just impose a topic ban, when you personally feel one is appropriate, without some consensus at WP:ANI or some other forum? Edison (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Any administrator can. I try and avoid WP:ANI in general, unless I'm involved and want to refer an issue to an impartial admin. ANI tends to draw out a bunch of drama, when a good conversation with the errant editor has a good chance of working without too much unnecessary controversy. If you'll look at the talk page conversation that resulted from this, the topic ban lasted just long enough for the desired course correction. Administrative "sanctions" of whatever stripe, exist to help improve the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A Minor Barnstar for you!

Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
Thanks for doing all the AfD's on the Firefly pages, somebody had to do it ;) Mod.torrentrealm 09:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work.

Thank you very much. Jclemens (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Block of Grandma Dottie

You blocked Grandma Dottie and indicated the block would be cleared if the pending checkuser showed the account was clear [13]. The problem is, the sockpuppet investigation has been declined because there's no evidence. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan. There's no evidence this account has abused anything. I'm all for blocking abusive sockpuppets. This isn't one. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the user's contributions and policy knowledge: anyone who shows up with a sympathy-inspiring username and a clear knowledge of policy is quite likely to be a sockpuppet, in my mind. Do YOU see a good reason for the post on Baseball Bugs' page? At any rate, I would hope that an admin agreeing with a WP:DUCK sock block would be sufficient grounds for an RFCU. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree the user obviously has prior experience. That does not make it abusive. People are permitted to have alternate accounts here, and they're not even required by policy to identify them. So long as there is no abuse, there's no reason to block. Nobody has yet produced a diff that shows abuse. I've looked at EVERY diff of this editor, and found zero abuse. The RFCU has already been denied for lack of evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft, the "abuse" you are looking for is either block evasion or attempting to game the system (i.e. to get around WP:3RR). It really doesn't matter which one it is since both are block-worthy as a violation of WP:SOCK. — BQZip01 — talk 20:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Which is your false interpretation of the policy, which I have pointed out to you. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


...for the block. Your rationale seems quite strong. For clarifcation, the checkuser was denied because a lack of submitted evidence, not a lack of existing evidence. The clerk even stated, "It is very possible that the evidence is there to be found...". I'll add that info as soon as I get feedback on the preferred forum/method. — BQZip01 — talk 20:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I've looked at every diff done by this editor. There is no evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    See above. — BQZip01 — talk 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've unblocked User:Grandma Dottie because the CU evidence suggests she is unrelated to the other party.. (wrong geolocation, wrong UA, etc.. ). If she continues to edit and exhibits problematic behavior, you (or anyone) may reblock for behavioral reasons, or submit another SPI report. (given BaseballBug's comments below, I'll follow up with another CU on this editor at some point in the future. Bugs, I've you can give me recently used IDs belonging to this impersonator, I'll have something better to compare. --Versageek 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to look it up. I don't maintain an "enemies list". I'm starting to think I should do so. Off-wiki, of course. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are a couple of them, involving various users impostoring/implicating other right-wing users: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Axmann8/Archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caden/Archive Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion, hopefully

The checkuser evidence is good enough for me. I don't see any reason to take any further action at this point, but will always listen to feedback posted here. Thanks to all the people with differing opinions who conducted themselves civilly in this matter. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The checkuser only checked for connection with TomPhan, not with the various Axmann8 impostors, which is still an open question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, then feel free to take that up with the CU who performed the check. I couldn't do a CU if I tried. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no point to. All the axe and impostors edits would be stale in a CU request. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


That "new" user came to my page and immediately started making nice and talking about Axmann8's impostors, which is something no new user would know about, and which was also the M.O. of some of the other Axmann8 impostors. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this perhaps a sock farm or set of TOR nodes? — BQZip01 — talk 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


Please revert your close of Advance. The point of contesting a prod is to have a discussion,and 86 minutes is not enough. I didn't contest the prod, and I doubt i will support the article, but there is still a reason to follow process and let the deprodder be heard from. I recognize the problem with his deprods, but there should still be a chance for discussion. For one thing, I want a chance to say that Atama's reason , that it is invalid to remove a prod without giving a good reason, is against policy. DGG (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For you, be happy to. I'm not sure it will make any difference in the final outcome, but you're always welcome to your say. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm curious what your thinking was here. There was no contact information, no last name, and nothing sexually charged. Had any one of these elements been present, I would have deleted the page myself. I userified under the hope that its author may someday have a stronger interest in Wikipedia, something I think we'd all like to nurture and encourage. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It contained a DOB which placed the user under 13; that's "identifying personal information" and per my reading of WP:COPPA, needed to go. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I see, though I'm not entirely sure I would agree that a date of birth alone constitutes identifying personal information. The intent in WP:COPPA (a misnomer, since WP is not commercial in nature and therefore not affected by the COPPA legislation) and the arbcom case by which it was inspired was to deal with situations where there was sufficient personal information to pose a problem, at least potentially. I also note that WP:COPPA is not policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't go looking for self-identified kids, but if someone flags another page with the same info for speedy and I see it like I did this one, I'd delete it as well. The additional concerns that we're not a social network weighed a bit into the decision--thus, even if it wasn't strictly harmful, it did zero to build an encyclopedia, and it was the user's first contribution. If the user comes back and contributes, great. If not... well, neither seventh graders nor people who enjoy pretending to be seventh graders are at all likely to be net positive producers around here. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Political Divisions.jpg

Why is this picture not delete when it is copyright on the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janc6 (talkcontribs) 10:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama's arms

Actually, in reference to this edit, the two are nearly identical. I presume you too are an admin, and thus I would strongly suggest looking at this. The two read nearly verbatim.

Being an admin, I was going to SD per G4 but I see you removed that request and thus I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion. It's already been suggested that the article be deleted per G4. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just speedy deleted this article without first seeing that a speedy deletion request had been knocked back. I didn't intend to wheel war, but it was a clear CSD G4 candidate given that the wording was identical except for a few sentences and was created by the same editor. I hope that this is OK. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just requested oversight for this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Request for oversight if you'd like to comment. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
...and per a comment there I've just restored the article and reopened the discussion. Sorry about that. No wheel warring was indented, but I (obviously) agree that this article meets CSD G4. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
That's quite alright--I didn't think that it was a clear case of G4, given that the title had moved in an encyclopedic direction and it looked like the content was following, but I don't think your action was incorrect per se. I appreciate your follow-up here, but I'm not too invested in the article: if the community wants it gone or kept, I won't complain either way. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Tara Maclay

You reverted me with this comment : Undid revision 296548204 by VIGNERON (talk) rv unsourced, possible OR. But the source was soon on the article. I recommend you to read the article (and maybe WP:AGF) next time. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Vigneron, sorry about that, but plenty of OR/unsourced edits to fictional characters happen all the time. WP:BURDEN expects that sources be added at the same time as comments, precisely to prevent this sort of situation. No bad faith was inferred; when I think an edit was intentionally unconstructive, I do leave a note (or a template) on the user talk page. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox former F1 driver/doc deletion

This was deleted as G8. I'm pretty sure that the parent page wasn't nonexistent when I moved it. For that matter, it seems a large number of pages around the F1 templatespace have been deleted for housekeeping in the last 24 hours, and most of them appear to be bad ideas (deleting talk redirects, deleting doc pages). Can you have a look into this? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

On further inspection, it looks like this was merged into {{infobox F1 driver}}. Any chance of sticking something like that in the edit summaries in future? Helps to ensure that people know what's happened to pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I just did the speedies with the default summaries based on the reasons given. Normally, those are sufficiently instructive--don't know why it wasn't in this case. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi, you deleted the above article as a copyvio. I would like to salvage it and reuse whatever categories and wikilinks there might be ãvailable. Could you email it to me pls. BEst. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio was from, the EL's were:
Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


Just saying thanks for going to the trouble to seperate out the issues into two threads. I thought it made the discussion much clearer. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Very nice to hear at least one editor appreciated my efforts. Really, I do mean that sincerely. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Endless (band)

Hello. You appear to have deleted this article as an A7, but a cached version shows that the band have released 2 albums and have received significant coverage. I don't feel that this is an appropriate case for speedy deletion and would be grateful if you would restore the article. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Two albums, absent release on a major label, do not meet WP:BAND. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Articles do not have to demonstrate meeting WP:BAND to avoid speedy deletion. The band has existed for over 10 years, and has a large number of releases as well as significant coverage in at least one magazine. This may or may not meet WP:BAND with a little work, but the correct place for this to be decided is WP:AFD - it isn't a valid speedy candidate.--Michig (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
They do not need to demonstrate, they need to assert facts that, if sourced to meet WP:V, would meet the GNG or an SNG like WP:BAND. Show me a single sentence in that (cached) article that asserts anything of the sort, and I'll relent, but I've reviewed it, and the speedy deletion was appropriate. Better idea: Take that cached content, add something to it that unequivocally asserts WP:BAND, and put it right back, and it will be safe from speedy. Source it, and it will be immune to Prod or AfD, too. You don't need my permission or a DRV or anything to put an article back in that location, and that's tons easier than convincing me that I was wrong when I wasn't. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Any assertion of notability is sufficient to avoid speedy - it isn't necessary to assert the level of notability covered by WP:BAND. There are plenty of articles with absolutely nothing going for them for which speedy is wholly appropriate. The band has received significant coverage in a print magazine. That should be enough to at least avoid speedy deletion. I don't have time to recreate the article now - I may have a go later, but obviously the work involved will be much greater without the article being there. Perhaps in future you could err on the side of being a little less zealous, and only use speedy deletion for unequivocally clear-cut cases. A PROD or AFD would have given others the time to look into this and give it a chance to be improved.--Michig (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but why on earth would an article be not speedyable if its best "claim to fame" (notability assertion), assuming it were true and sourced, would NOT be sufficient grounds for inclusion? Speedy gives the article the benefit of the doubt--but if there's nothing asserted worth assuming the benefit of the doubt over, then it goes bye-bye. If you think through your logic, "Sheila Jones is a beautiful girl" is an assertion of notability. Under such constraints, {{db-band}} would be impossible to apply! 80+% of speedied articles contain something that could be construed as an assertion of notability. Your dumbing down of inclusion criteria is unworkable in practice. If a claim does not meet at least one notability guideline, it's not a credible claim. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not "dumbing down" the inclusion criteria, just following the WP:CSD policy, which makes it clear that for A7's "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." (my bold text).--Michig (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Notability requires multiple, independent reliable sources. Assertions of notability do not. Assertions of notability are a lower standard than notability. This purported middle ground, where importance insufficient to meet the GNG or any SNG is enough to stave off speedy deletion under A7, is wrongly inferred. Not much more to say than that. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's completely wrong. An article only needs to assert "why its subject is important or significant" - an assertion that the subject meets the notability criteria is completely different, as clearly stated in the policy, and an assertion that the subject meets notability guidelines per GNG/SNG is not required to avoid A7. You might also like to refer to the section of the policy that states "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for articles with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete articles except in the most obvious cases." Such obvious cases are ones where no experienced editor would think that speedy deletion was wrong.--Michig (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
So DRV it if you want to. Again: it's faster to just recreate it with an assertion of notability. You've spent 5x the amount of time typing here than it would have taken you to do that. I've reviewed my decision, I've reviewed your reasoning, and I find no fault in the former nor merit in the latter. This topic is closed. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Quite so, I might be bold and do just that. However, some characters truly HAVE had "last appearances" but such a state may never be permanent. Series exits, should of course, always be mentioned in the body, making the inclusion of a last (most recent) appearance mentioned in the infobox arbitrary.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just went ahead and did it yesterday anyway. Should we perhaps still seek out some WP:BUFFY consensus? I can think of a few regulars there and none come to mind who would disagree.~ZytheTalk to me! 09:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Victor Black

Hello, Jclemens … FYI, an article that you speedy deleted

has been recreated, but another editor's CSD was declined with the suggestion that it be taken to AfD … do we really have to go through that whole procedure for this piece of fancruft?

Happy Editing! — (talk · contribs) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind … please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Black. — (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thunder Cleese

Hi! Thanks for deleting Thunder Cleese. I've had to CSD this page several times, now, and it keeps getting re-created. Could I request that you protect it from creation for another six months?  X  S  G  03:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I only see it deleted twice so far, and it seems trivial and inconsequential, rather than a serious violation (attack page, copyvio, ads, etc.), so I'm not inclined to protect is preemptively. You can always feel free to ask at WP:RFPP, though. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That's fair. Interactions with the creator seem to tend toward the hostile (rejecting ProDs and undoing redirects), so I suspect he'll try to create it again. We'll tackle that issue if it happens.  X  S  G  03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Northwest Air District

I do not understand why the Northwest Air District redirect page to Second Air Force was deleted. Bwmoll3 (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted as routine maintenance, a self-referrential redirect--not sure how it got that way, but that the time it was deleted, it didn't point anywhere except to itself. Glad you knew where to put it back. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth & The Catapult

Really Annoying to come to research a band and find that the article has been deleted by what appears to be a serial band deleter. I'll wait for this article to come back to life, and you to find yourself on the wrong side of history, but you're just making it harder for people who are using Wikipedia as an encyclopedia instead of as their own fiefdom like you seem to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Conveniently I can find information on them at iTunes, and, so I guess I don't need Wikipedia anyway. That's fortunate with stupid editors destroying information like you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the article. If you'd like to create an article on them, feel free to do so. Just make sure you have a clear statement of how they meet one or more of the notability criteria in WP:BAND, and they won't be speedily deleted. Of course, the ultimate goal would be to have links to those references from NPR and other reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Can you explain how exactly one performs dispute resolution with a user on an IP address who ignores talk page messages when blocking for disruptive editing solves the issue much more easily?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nichiren Shōshū

I have a question I reverted some questionable edits over at Nichiren Shōshū and I seemed to have made a anon mad he/she/it left me a nasty comment about reincarnation on my talk page. I was just wondering if it was something I should go to WP:ANI about or not? Whispering 06:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for harassment. If he shows up again, ANI might be appropriate, but most people just go away when blocked. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope so thanks. Whispering 07:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Grace (cryptid victim)

You deleted Grace but I left some links on the talk page which I thought might be useful. They included her surname and a description of her death in a poem. Can you look at them again and see if they are enough? --candlewicke 15:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How about I userify both article and talk page to your userspace and you integrate them? Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, here. --candlewicke 03:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done ... and the talk page to User_talk:Candlewicke/Grace_(cryptid_victim). Feel free to move them back to mainspace as soon as that's integrated. Consider changing the article name if there's a good source for a lastname, and ask if you need anything further. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Algae redirects

It's been a pleasure doing business with you! ~ Amory (usertalkcontribs) 23:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean we're done? Please? :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The bright side is that we can now do some OR on Carpal tunnel! ~ Amory (usertalkcontribs) 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikaey 2

Hi there, saw your comment in the oppose section here. I'd like to ask that you please remove it, we don't want the whole DougsTech thing again with 20 people commenting at every oppose. Neither do I want to remove it myself, as it's your comment. An alternative would be to mention him in your support reason. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered that, but this is so recent that some of the !voters may not be up to speed on what's going on. Do you really think it's likely to attract people attacking the note? Sigh. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure all the people commenting on DuogsTech's opposes were acting in good faith, but look how it ended every time (massive annoying thread at WT:RfA). Nobody should oppose per him (they should do research) and if they do it'll make them look silly ;). - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Mine's removed, but someone else has since jumped in in a different manner... Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciated the heads up. Totally missed the WT:RFA thread. Someone has boldly indeneted his vote. So. . . . Dlohcierekim 21:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Prod removed

Hi, I noticed User:Thewalrus69 did not notify you about removing your prod from Windsor Floor Hockey League. I think we can assume good faith there, it's hard for a new user to know all processes, but I thought you'd like to know. I added back the {{notability}} saying in the edit summary The fact remains that this article does not show the notability of its subject through "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please add such evidence; otherwise, this won't stand a chance in an AfD., but nothing has happened since. I don't know how often (s)he logs on, and I thought it might be a good idea to give some time before going ahead with the AfD, but I severely doubt of course that notability can be established here. It might also interest you that we're dealing with a user of great incivility here, even when (s)he is making a somewhat fair point, as at Talk:Floorball#Clarification and Talk:Floorball#Is this the same as floorhockey?. Also pretty much a single-purpose account. —JAOTC 05:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Luna (given name)

Actually, I deprodded the article only seconds after adding my own prod2 tag. I found something it could be useful for. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 01:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep Young And Beautiful (song)

It's been speedy-tagged for ten hours, yet I somehow managed to edit-conflict with you declining the speedy at exactly the same time... magic! ;) ~ mazca talk 07:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that. If you're going to process the queue, then I'm headed to bed soon! Jclemens (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Kevin T. Collins copyvio

Thanks for looking at this one. The whole article is actually a straight copy, word for word. If you look again at the URL [14] and then click on "Stats" you will see the whole thing  Velela  Velela Talk   08:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I'd only looked at the press and resume sublinks. I hate flash navigation sites that obscure the real URLs. :-) It's gone now. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Pagano (ESPN)

Yesterday, you deleted Chuck Pagano (ESPN) as an expired PROD. I have found evidence he won a broadcasting award and has otherwise been covered by multiple reliable sources. If you could please undelete or userify the article so that I expand & source it to reflect his notability I would appreciate it.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jclemens (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your work on the Civilian Public Service GA review and all the other work you put into this area. Sorry it took so long to get back to it. I wanted to make absolutely sure I would be able to respond to additional concerns, especially if it took many weeks for a reviewer to get back to it. I know you said to let you know when thing were tidied up, but so much time had passed already… JonHarder talk 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all right, real life does that to us sometimes. I'm just glad you did get back to it--keep up the great work! Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of RVL Group

Thank you for taking care of this! - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Governance

You have deleted my article on the Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Governance and have marked it as hoax. Let me inform you that the article was no hoax. It was marked with {{hoax}} from a user who kept trying to vandalise it. The event took place on the 24/06/2009 and was broadcasted internationaly. The Chaldean Syriac Assyrian people were granted self governance in Northern Iraq.

1. Start new topics at the bottom of the page so I don't have to hunt for them.
2. Link the article in question
3. If it happened in June, please correct the article which says it happens later this month. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As an FYI, to Jclemens the following was left on my talk page earlier today:

I saw this related notice on your page by pure chance, but thought you might want know the CSD nominator's rationale. I have not investigated the matter myself, so can offer no further opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Google News has no hits for that in the past month so... it's going away as a hoax. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Darla Crane

Could you give this one a second look? I don't see it as a paraphrase, but just a change from 3rd person to 1st person, which I think would qualify as a copyvio. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it looks like the person is all that's changed. However, I don't see that as an unambiguous copyvio. Feel free to AfD it on that basis, and I'd likely support, but I don't feel comfortable speedying it for a close paraphrase. Make sense? Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

G12 decline on Baksar

FYI: I think the paraphrasing is still way too close. I tagged it with copyvio and listed it at WP:CP for further investigation. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I just read the immediately preceding comment after posting this. I think we might have a difference on interpretation - my take would be if it's still sufficiently close paraphrasing to constitute a potential copyvio, we're exposed to legal issues if it remains visible for a 7+ PROD or AfD, and my suggestion would be to place the copyvio template and list it at WP:CP in these cases. If this sounds too aggressive, would you mind if I asked for a clarification of consensus on WT:CP? MLauba (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I absolultely do NOT mind--all I've said by declining the speedy's is that I didn't feel the copyright was sufficiently blatant and unambiguous that I felt comfortable deleting it myself without additional input. I'm always willing for speedy declines to go to the next appropriate escalation point, where more eyes can validate or reject an issue. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I started a discussion here. If I'm misrepresenting your position or leaving something out, please do by all means set the record straight. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You've not misrepresented anything. Thanks for starting the conversation; I've commented there and watchlisted the page. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Reddi

I really disagree with your decision to extend the block. The original reviewer didn't comment on Reddi's offer to voluntarily stay away from the article if unblocked... neither did you, for that matter. I don't think the request was frivolous, and in any case I don't think it's justifiable to block someone for making frivolous requests if they aren't abusive: at best, we protect the talk page. I think you should reconsider. Mangojuicetalk 17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At what point, if ever, do you believe users should be disincentivized for repeatedly requesting unblocks? Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If they are being abusive. If they have been given clear feedback about what would be needed to reach an unblock and are obstinate about it, particularly sockpuppets who refuse to admit it. If they've asked for too many. Mangojuicetalk 17:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
But in all those cases, I would merely prevent future requests, I would never extend the block unless what they did would merit its own block. Mangojuicetalk 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
For a first time blockee, I would agree. This fellow has been blocked for 3RR violations in March and October of last year, and for incivility and other misbehavior before that. His October response was unhelpful. Please take a look at the edits following that past event, and see what you think about my additional sanction in light of his history. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
October of last year was 9 months ago, and that incident was quite different. Here, there is a legitimate possibility of misunderstanding: an IP was, after all, blanking out a section of an article repeatedly. I also looked at his talk page history in both those times and in both cases he only posted one request for unblock. But the history really doesn't matter, because there is nothing wrong with requesting an unblock when you are blocked: he was asking for a second opinion, and may have been encouraged to do so by Hersfold. I can't see this block as anything other than punitive, and I have a hard time understand what it was about his behavior that even upset you so much. Mangojuicetalk 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not upset, just unsympathetic. From a game theory perspective, allowing unlimited unblock requests without consequences provides no disincentive to request an unblock: Why not ask, if you have nothing to lose--except maybe access to your talk page for the duration? If I had been doing the intial block, I would probably have blocked for two weeks, since last time he was blocked for a week. I think 24 hours is quite lenient given the user's past block history, general practice of escalating blocks, and the like.
Punitive vs. preventive is a bit more subjective, I think. What you see as retribution for asking, I see as a disincentive for him to ask again. 3RR is a bit of an oxymoronic area, isn't it? If the article was protected, that would be the minimum required intervention to end the problem. Yet, the community has seen fit to enforce blocks against individuals who participate in edit warring. If the community is agreed that such is non-punitive, and it seems to be, I see no reason that extending a block for a repeat offender who "just doesn't get it" is particularly punitive. It's really just a form of negative reinforcement, as far as I'm concerned. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that a 2 week block would have been justified, even given Reddi's history. I think WMC exercised appropriate restraint: this was an IP editor blanking out part of an article, and although there were several reverts, discussion was proceeding on the talk page, and Reddi didn't break 3RR or even come especially close to it. Reddi was calling the edits he was reverting vandalism, which on the one hand is an AGF violation but on the other hand edits like that in other circumstances can be reasonably labeled as such. And if Reddi believed in good faith that this was the kind of thing everyone would agree was vandalism, it does somewhat excuse the edit warring. I do agree he was edit warring but it's a borderline case. And this is a user who has a long block record, but part of that is because he's been editing for such a long time. But you can't pretend that your block was for edit warring, because you quite clearly justified it by saying he made a "frivolous" unblock request and was a non-initial offender. First of all, this request was not frivolous at all. If you handled unblock requests regularly you would know that when not all the points in a user's unblock request are addressed, they often make those points again: in this case, the promise to refrain from editing the article. Also, note that Hersfold said "Another admin is welcome to override me if they feel otherwise" which is practically an invitation to seek another opinion. Second, you are making up a rule that is far, far harsher than practice or policy. WP:APPEAL, which is policy, makes it clear that the remedy when the unblock process is being abused (e.g. by using it in bad faith, or when a user is abusing people in comments) is to prevent such editing by protecting the page. It also says this in {{Unblock reviewed}}.
I noted, in looking through your contributions that you don't really handle are relatively inexperienced with unblock requests: you've only ever issued one unblock (and mishandled it). If you did, you would understand what happens during the unblock process with established editors. You act as if a user requesting an unblock is a bad thing -- it's not. In fact, for a lot of users, I think they wouldn't ever really understand their block or our policies if they don't have the chance to ask questions and get clarifications. They also get the chance to make bargains that can lead to the block being lifted. In my experience, (and I have a lot of it in this area, going on 3 years now), established users who get blocked very often have some kind of misunderstanding about policy: in this case, there is every reason to think Reddi is confused between WP:3RR and WP:EW which is actually very common; that's why both Hersfold and I took the time to explain that to him. We want him to come out of this process better educated about what he did wrong and how to avoid that in the future than he was going in: after all, he's a long time editor and it's not to anyone's benefit for him to be getting blocked over things like this. So, your entire idea that we should try to discourage people from making unblock requests is wrong: what it costs us (a little bit of admin time to consider and review the block) is little compared to what it gains us, which is to make sure appropriate blocks have their full effect, and to make sure that users blocked inappropriately have the chance to appeal. And, especially with a user who gets angry that they are blocked (which is, frankly, to be expected, and has to be treated with understanding), it's important that the unblock process not reflect badly on the admin community as a whole: we need to show that we aren't biased but are enforcing policy, and that we are protecting the encyclopedia and not power-tripping. Look from Reddi's perspective: no one told him his first unblock request was bad, it was just declined. So he makes another one, with legit expectations of getting another admin opinion, and he gets his block extended for it. And now, he can't even realistically challenge that, because he's already been blocked for challenging his block: pretty clear message.
That's why this block extension has to be undone. It would be better if you did it yourself, but if you won't, I will. Mangojuicetalk 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it's been about an hour, and you seem to be offline, so I've undone it, since the original block is now expired. Mangojuicetalk 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec, yes, I was in meetings for the two last hours) I won't contest your reversion of the block extension, but nor do I see that extending a block in these circumstances is any sort of a problem. I think we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement. In my view, the vast majority of users who are blocked are blocked justifiably, and the likelihood of a block being appropriate increases at least linearly on the basis of previous block history. Likewise, repeated unblock requests which don't accept responsibility for the behavior, are themselves disruptive editing--just as much as throwing bad-faith speedy tags on articles. It would be possible to characterize my extension as a separate 12 hour block for disruptive editing, but that won't change the substance of what it is, although it might moot the argument from silence in WP:APPEAL. At some point, users get no more chances and should just expect to wait out their block. Length of tenure isn't a particularly compelling arugment, since both you and I have been editing here for years, accumulating around 20k edits, with completely clean block logs. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Bad faith is one thing, unblock requests that are merely unproductive are often placed in good faith. And while I suppose one could look at truly repeated (like, 4 or 5) requests as disruptive, it is more often just a user trying to defend themselves against accusations they don't understand. Unblock requests aren't only for dealing with blocks that were wrongly placed, they're also for asking questions about them and trying to reach a workable agreement, when that's possible. I agree with you that most blocks are justified. But also, about 1/3 or more blocks that are appealed can end up being lifted eventually, though rarely on the first request. Mangojuicetalk 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, then, we're not as philosophically apart as I first feared. Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective with me over this matter, and again--no disagreement with you reversing the block extension. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Viz Mail

I do not understand how it could possibly have been deleted as per the Speedy rationale: 1. This is not a typo or a misnomer, and the speedy rationale specifically stated so; if the name does not match the rationale, the speedy should not happen. 2. The company Viz Communications did offer a service called "Viz Mail," and this was documented in reliable sources 3. Logically the name of a service operated by a company should redirect to the name of the company 4. The particular service is now discussed in the article

I am kindly requesting an explanation. Thank you. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the nominating editor's comments, Googling VizMail showed something different entirely. If no one is likely to search on that term, there's no need for it to be a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Include quotation marks and possibly other to get the actual search results. See as an example.
2. I found reliable sources that discuss this service. We use reliable sources as measures for whether a topic can be discussed on Wikipedia. While I find not too many google hits, reliable sources discuss this topic. There aren't enough for it to have its own article, but branded names of company services often redirect to the company's page.
3. This service is now discussed in the article Viz Media. You can see it here: Viz_Media#Website
4. You did not follow the Speedy deletion criteria. Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion#Redirects states the reasons why a redirect can be speedied (The "general" criteria can be used in all namespaces, but I don't see how any of the general criteria fit).
"Redirects from the article namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. If the redirect was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect. See also Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. "
"Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages."
Because "Viz Mail" is not a typo or a misnomer for "Viz Media," you are not allowed to speedy delete it as a redirect. You were required to keep the redirect as it did not fit the criteria, and that was the only outcome that fits the speedy deletion criteria. You should never have speedied deleted the redirect in this case. One can only speedy delete something for very specific reasons, and User:Collectionian's objections do not follow any of the allowable reasons for the speedy deletion. If User:Collectonian wanted to delete it, she should have had to have used Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Since you were not allowed to speedy the redirect in that case, I would like for both reidrects to be recreated. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Step down from the rhetoric a bit, please. The assertion, judged by me to have merit after a cursory google search, was that VizMail was in fact a misnomer. Go ahead and recreate the redirect (I certainly didn't salt it), and leave Collectonian a note asking her to take it to RfD if she still disagrees. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Next time, though, please only delete for reasons outlined in the speedy criteria. In future cases may be best to say something to the users like "I think User:XX has a proper rationale for deletion, but it does not fit the speedy criteria. While I am keeping the redirect, I am encouraging User:XX to use Redirects for discussion" - something like that :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
She has nominated it for redirects for discussion here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_8#Viz_Mail WhisperToMe (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Commented, thanks. Jclemens (talk)

Enerbev Undeletion for further additions

Hello, I understand your deletion of my post for Enerbev and would just like the opportunity to continue to edit it until it is ready for Wikipedia. Enerbev is my first try at editing articles so please try to help. If possible, please put the deleted article on my userpage or email ( it to me. Thank you for your help in advance. (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this, I really don't see much hope that it will ever be a useful article, but I could be wrong. Please review WP:COI and WP:SPAM and post here again if you believe, after reading those guidelines, that the topic really will merit an encyclopedia article. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I do understand your concerns and do understand my conflict of interest. I do, however, strongly believe that Enerbev deserves an encyclopedia article and that it will have to be done by someone else. More than anything, I would just like to use the article as practice for myself and would not like to lose all of the work I put into the article in the first place. Please email it to or put it on my userpage if possible. Thank you for your quick response, honest assessment, and assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawooten (talkcontribs) 23:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, undeleted and moved to User:Wawooten/Enerbev. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion guidelines for admins

Yeah, I do think we need the IAR bit in there (for the benefit of newer users who might not be aware of it). Clarity's good.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We ought to have this conversation on the talk page, for the benefit of others. I'm not convinced that we want newbie admins handed an "IAR applies more here than elsewhere" license--ideally, we will have picked good admins who will not misuse IAR in "dramah"-inducing ways, but I think that overall a reminder of IAR in that context might have a net negative effect on the project. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Can move it to the talk page, if you like; but since it's you who's objecting to the edit, I thought I'd talk to you personally first.

I've spent a fair bit of time at DRV, and my experiences there have taught me to think we need clarity in the deletion guidelines. And I don't think my edit implied that "IAR applies more here than elsewhere" -- but if it did, the answer would surely be to clarify it, not to cut it. Hiding the rules is bad.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll refactor the sentence to take account of your concerns.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Line

I was hoping to avoid overloading Afd with articles that clearly violate WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:INUNIVERSE by redirecting the most egregious examples (i.e. articles that made no attempt to even assert out-of-universe notability and contained copious amounts of pure plot summary). However, as you disagree, I have instead nominated the article for deletion. I find it ironic that someone who uses this image on their userpage would disagree on this... Savidan 07:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, and you appear to have looked at the article in its current state, rather than the subject of the article. Are you even familiar with the topic? Did you try to execute any part of WP:BEFORE? Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey J, on a related note, do you have anything that can help these? BOZ (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw them, but I don't. I've never been into the D&D fictional universes, and haven't played regularly since 2nd Edition came out. Good luck with your effort to source them! Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I don't really have anything for them either, as I'm rather inexperienced as a source-finder. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, which is a policy, when you remove a prod tag from an article, it is required that you state in the edit summary why you disagree with the proposed deletion. For example, you deprodded The Sublimed with the edit summary "Decline PROD" which is insufficient to explain why you think this pure WP:PLOT reguritation should have an article on Wikipedia. In future, please provide a detailed edit summary when removing prod tags from articles. Abductive (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the word "must" or "should"? I have no problem expaining, however: I simply want to see each of these fictional elements given an AfD--that is all that is required for any editor to contest a PROD. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Experienced users should follow the spirit of policies even more so than regular editors. You accuse users of not following WP:BEFORE, but can't understand why the policy has this text in it? Abductive (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I understand perfectly well why it's a good idea. Did you realize that I deprodded about 20 articles? Lacking an automated deprodding script, I simply didn't feel the need to type redundantly. Thanks for your advice, it's been heard, and that's pretty much all these is to say on this matter. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If I may, perhaps this explanation will be of some use: While it is recommended that one provide a reason for dePROD, none is actually required. The idea behind proposed deletion is that no one at all would object to its deletion. The mere fact that someone objects by removing the prod is enough invalidate the deletion proposal. PROD is a shortcut to the way things normally work on Wikipedia - that is, it is done without any community discussion. For that reason, it is purposely as easy as possible to stop a proposed deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for that explanation ThaddeusB. For those of you not familiwr with his work, ThaddeusB is great at finding expiring PRODs which are in fact salvageable. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE asks that people do some searching prior to speedies, prods and afds. I think you know that these articles have no reliable sources, and that you are playing a delaying game which is at odds with your experience level. Abductive (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
... and you are now disinvited from this page for failure to end a thread when the talk page owner (me) says it's closed, and assuming bad faith in the above edit. Bye. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trashwomen

Hello. Can you explain why you closed this discussion and deleted this article little more than 6 hours after it was relisted (and less than 7 days after it was first listed), with only 2 editors contributing opinions in favour of deletion? I believe sufficient coverage exists to support an article including an Allmusic review, an LA Record feature, and discussion in the Miami New Times, but as I missed it when originally listed did not get the chance to mention these in the discussion. Do you have any objection to a new article being created with these sources added?--Michig (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a single person spoke up asking for it to be kept; that's not good grounds for relisting, which is designed to allow decisions on the cusp to continue. I am generally biased against pointless relistings: if no one cared enough the first time 'round, odds are a relisting is just cluttering up AfD... but of course, there are exceptions. No, I don't mind if it's recreated with more sourcing--need it userified so you can work on it? Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
If you could userify it that would be helpful. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Michig/The Trashwomen Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm sorry, I just see them in a negative light. I was kind of hoping they'd change my mind when I tagged the Niemi article, but it just got worse when I expressed my dissatisfaction. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • And that's why I say I found them unhelpful. To be honest, there are a couple of members there that seem to think EVERY article should be saved, no matter what, and that blind faith kind of annoys me. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongholds of A Song of Ice and Fire - nom for deletion

An article you have contributed to has been nominated for deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Boyz in the Sink‎

Nice save. :) Crafty (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI case

Hi Jclemens. I wanted to make you aware of a situation which you are somewhat connected to. On June 21st you speedy deleted the article Christopher Raeburn (fashion designer) for copyvio (see here: [15]) which was created by User:Tepli. I had nominated it for a speedy after having moved the page from Christopher Raeburn (to make way for the article on the record producer) to Christopher Raeburn (fashion designer). Yesterday Tepli removed the info on the record producer and replaced it with a recreation of the deleted copyvio article on the fashion designer (see here:[16]). He also left this comment on my user page: [17]. Based on his edit history I think he could accurately be described as an SPA account and I suspect that he may in fact either be Christopher Raeburn the fashion designer or in some way be connected to him. I left some comments on his talk page but it would be good to have an admin monitor how this situation develops. Thanks for your help and all the best.Singingdaisies (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So, looks like a good faith newbie mistake on his part. I see a well-cited record producer listing there now, so feel free to let me know if anything else weird happens, and I'll provide guidance. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fold7

According to this, it seems that a relisting once more should have been done rather than a no-consensus close. There certainly was not enough discussion to suggest that no consensus would have been reached. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

One delete (the nom)+one keep+one other suggestion+14ish days of no one else making any comments despite two relistings == no reasonable belief that an additional relisting would have inspired more meaningful debate. Sorry, but I do not see the value of listing things at AfD that no one cares about one way or the other. Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Areas for Reform

Might benefit from your insights. Collect (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You sure you want me to contribute there? :-) Jclemens (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Slrubenstein asked if I knew any thoughtful editors who might add input there -- I figured you would have much to contribute (such as on Deletions) without getting into folks whose opinions are not as carefully considered. If you know anyone who would have good input, please ask them. With all the RfCs (including on the ArbCom proposal) floating around, I figure this is a positive attempt to focus on.  :) Collect (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

  • T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
  • WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
  • WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
  • WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
  • WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! no to drama 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)