User talk:Jclemens/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

WP:COREBLP

TPS'ers are welcome to comment there. I just threw up something in exasperation, so I've no doubt it could be improved. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Article Printing in networks

Hi,

concerning this article "• 21:41, 5 February 2010 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "Printing in networks" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Unencyclopeduic content, this tells how to make printers connect into a network)" I would like to know why the article has been rated "unencyclopaedic content" and what should be changed in order to upload the article properly. Any hints appreciated.

Regards Herbert

"ThinPrint (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)"

Ultimately this appears to have violated WP:NOT#HOWTO. The proposed deletion process kicks in when one author tags an article as clearly not appropriate for the encyclopedia, and no one else removes it for a week--all the deleting administrator does is go through and check to see that the tag is not objectively unreasonable. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Road Home deletion for lack of Notability

Hi - My name is Dee Archer. I was the lead vocalist and an original founder of a band called Road Home. It appears you have deleted the article about Road Home due to "lack of notability". I would like to add some verifiable information about the Road Home that you might consider.

Road Home was, in fact, an extremely well known band - actually a phenomenon - in the late 1960's and early 1970's in Orange County, CA (I have an excellent printed article from local press about the throngs of people who were coming to hear us, and who stood in line in droves for hours almost every night for a solid year in Newport Beach - if you have interest), and we did record and release an album on a major label, on ABC/Dunhill Records - produced by the famous songwriting/producing duo of "Lambert and Potter" (Dennis Lambert and Brian Potter) in 1971. (Most famous for all Tavaras hits and the Righteous Brothers' hit "Rock and Roll Heaven"). I believe these two are both noted here on Wiki.

I did object to the original writing of this particular Road Home article myself, so I'm not surprised it was deleted, because Road Home was described as a Christian Band from the 70's led by Bill Sprouse, Jr. (and Road Home is referenced in his article here). So perhaps you deleted the article due to disputes logged by some original members of - and fans of - the Road Home who disagreed with this sole depiction of the Band. However, Bill Sprouse was a dear friend of mine before his passing in 1975, so I would simply like to set straight the story of the Road Home (in its two incarnations - one as a successful, recorded secular band on a major label - and one as a Christian band - both with Bill's participation).

I won't take more of your time here at this point - but it is true that we recorded on a major label (you can find many copies of the CD for sale on eBay for $30+ dollars, now collector's items - Road Home: Peaceful Children) and I do believe we meet the criteria of Notability, as I understand it in the Wiki guidelines.

If you are in agreement that perhaps this article deserves reconsideration by you, I'm happy to supply both my own history of the band, which I believe would be more accurate than the article previously listed under this heading, and can supply some back-up articles, recordings, etc. for verifiability.

I've never written in Wiki, nor do I understand the process precisely. But I assume you can write back to me via my Account. However, not sure if my account info is current, so feel free to write back at deearchermusic@gmail.com. I appreciate your time and consideration of this request to do a deeper dive on the Road Home's Notability. (You can also learn more about me at deearcher.com, for my own credibility. Have never attempted to add myself to Wiki.)

Thanks - Dee Archer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcher27 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to locate the article in question. What was the article's exact name? Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamantaeau closing comments here, please.

Praise or condemnation, let's put it all in one place. Subhead if you'd like. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was planning on doing the same thing tomorrow. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll miss the melodrama for a few seconds, but shouldn't.htom (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your summation of the arguments was insightful and the decision was appropriate. I think users (myself particularly) appreciate your clear statement of the rationale in making the decision. So, I just wanted to thank you for putting such a detailed closing statement on the RFD section. -128.103.10.161 (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This was no more appropriate than DGG's close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that criticism. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for performing the close, it was a complex and long RfD. Whilst I obviously disagree with keeping it, as far as closures go it was fine, as there was no consensus to delete and no such consensus was going to form in either direction, which thus would have eventually defaulted to keep anyway. I agree with your analysis that an RfC could be useful though, and I will probably draft one in the future about Redirects in general, as I don't buy the entire "All Redirects are cheap and harmless" argument sometimes used. As a long-term reader, I know for myself that dodgy redirects can be harmful. Anyway I don't want to provide you with an essay, so back to the point, thanks for the close and well thought out rationale. Happy editing, --Taelus (Talk) 07:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, looking at the xkcd article now, it seems that something relevant to the topic has finally been added to the article. (At least for now). Thus I am quite happy that the redirects have been kept. My only problem with the redirect was the fact that previously, editors had been stating no such information should be kept in the xkcd article, thus it worried me that we would end up with the word randomly pointing to a page that made no mention of it whatsoever. Thus again, good closure, as my original points in the RfD are now moot as the topic is included at the target article. Thanks again, --Taelus (Talk) 07:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, hence me specifying that the editors at the article should figure out what to say and say something. After the furor dies down, there may be a move to merge everything to Wikipedia in popular culture, which wouldn't be an entirely bad thing if the topic were treated appropriately there. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Great close. I tried early on to keep this one from turning into exactly what it turned into but I wasn't successful. [1] [2] (discussion) [3] (DRV) [4] [5] [6] (discussion) Oh well ;P --Tothwolf (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Good close, but I don't like the early closing. I agree nothing new would come of it, but I worry this creates a race to close. That said, you nailed it. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, early closing is a bit of a sticky wicket. There's no "hard-and-fast rule" for RfD's like there is for AfD's, but you're right--it's a first mover advantage. At the same time, many of the folks I've differed with over previous (entirely unrelated) redirects were !voting keep. I've not looked all around the 'pedia this Monday AM yet (funny thing, I come here first to make the big orange bar go away...), but the reaction has been less negative than I feared. I'm guessing that's because I took special care to validate the concerns of the not-"winning" side and suggest future outlets for discussion. Jclemens (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Good job there. I don't happen to agree with your conclusion, but do appreciate the time and effort you put into a well-considered decision. I think you would have done better to let the thing run for the full time, however. I once closed a contentious debate early, and got slapped around a bit for it. Not that in the long run it mattered any, but when people on both sides are foaming at the mouth, it's better to not give them any excuses to cry foul. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I dunno about letting things "run their course" when things get contentious, though. I'm a firm believer in SNOW, BURO, and IAR: when the conclusion is clear, close it, because no one benefits from wasted time, effort, and acrimonious feelings when people argue back and forth.... I've seen things go to 7 days where WP:STICK applied on about day 3. :-S That's REALLY no fun. Jclemens (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Good work. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Grove Hotel

Could you un-delete the article for Grove Hotel? Looks like more deletionism amok. It's redlinked in the Qwest Arena article, and the artwork on the corner is a local landmark, but it was speedy deleted for lack of notability - certainly being one of the most prominent hotels in the city attached to a major arena makes it notable. Stick it in my namespace and I'll put it in a section of the Arena. Bachcell (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Restored to its primary location. Feel free to move to your userspace. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied it. Not being an admin, this now means we've got a redirect to articlespace. Can you take care of this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, although it didn't seem to be so egregiously badly that it couldn't have stayed in mainspace for a day or two while he worked on it. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{Talkback|Shirik|List of VM characters}} Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris Bickford

Thanks for redeleting that. One quick note, though, the article is at You Can't Do That on Television so right now it is a double redirect :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else already fixed that. Thanks for the heads up. Jclemens (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

17:18, 14 April 2010 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "Richard Gray (game designer)" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: No secondary sources; notability unclear)

Hey Jclemens,

You're probably the busy sort, so sorry for the hassle.

My name is Richard Gray, aka Levelord. I designed 1/2 of the levels for Duke Dukem 3D (popular computer game from 1996) and owned the game company Ritual Entertainment thereafter.

I just noticed that my Wiki page has been deleted. Can I get it reinstated? If not, no worries.

Thanks for your time, Richard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLevelord (talk • contribs) 05:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it per your request. The page could certainly use some additional references. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll add some references ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLevelord (talk • contribs) 22:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion without a proper discussion of List of Jewish pacifists, peace activists and supporters ‎

I protest the underhanded deletion of List of Jewish pacifists, peace activists and supporters ‎ without my (as recent leading contributor) or others knowledge in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish pacifists, peace activists and supporters. Noone properly made any announcement in my talk page. I currently cannot involve much in Wikipedia. I will apply DRV when I have time. If non-content creating anti-spam "mod" Enigma^msg goes on his long term attacks on Jewish peace activist or supporters' pages that I create or contribute by WP:wikihounding more then we have some issue. Also unsourced is a clear misinformation, since the proper references are already available in wikipedia articles. I also demand a copy of the list article content. Kasaalan (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I warned him for personal attacks. I fail to see how sending an article to AfD is "underhanded", and I really have taken enough abuse from this editor. Enigma^msg 14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You created an AFD after a long time, you did not notice me as recent top contributor/opposing view editor before or after AFD giving me no chance to participate discussions, although you harshly debated me before over the article. You did not notice anyone in related Wiki Projects. The AFD closed in 4 days with a few votes/views. You have acted same before in various I-P related AFDs for the articles you have not contributed but I have contributed/created before, by tracking my edits. You did not inform the facts to the JClemens as AFD closing party. Seriously how do you explain your AFD insistence on IP/I-P related articles although you have no expertise/involvement/contribution/knowledge/COI/POV about the issues according to your own statements. Kasaalan (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no "AFD insistence". Enigma^msg 19:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Kasaalan, if you want it back, you need to do a couple of things. (You're welcome to DRV at any time, of course, but I don't expect you'll get much more sympathetic of a response.)

1) You need a good set of inclusion criteria. Jewish pacifists et. al. arguably fails Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Trivial_intersection, since being a Jew and a pacifist are independent categorizations. And, of course, if a category is too trivial to be a category, then, well, what hope does it have of being a list?

2) For each entry, you need to reliably source.

2a) That person's Jewishness.

2b) That person's status as a pacifist, peace activist, etc.

While 1 could be argued and is a more fundamental question ("Is this a good list to have?"), 2 is the bigger If I'd simply deleted every single entry (as any editor is entitled to) which doesn't reliably source both characteristics of the named individual. The resultant empty list would have been speedily deletable.

Likewise, the sentiment of the several editors who did comment was that the list was fatally flawed: even if you'd sourced every entry appropriately, there's still no particular reason to have that list in Wikipedia. While I'm sorry no one notified you of the debate, your objection to the deletion would not have hindered my deletion of that content in any way--as BLP-violating content, I'm afraid I can't even userify that article for you. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with jclem, without sources it was a vast BLP vio.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey database man

If you're looking to make use of those new resources, I'm looking for reliable sources for Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté‎, Eulalie Durocher and Émilie Gamelin other than those currently present in the articles. If you feel like looking and find something, feel free to email me the text. No worries if you can't / don't. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. All three of those are reasonably established articles, one a GA, which are not in danger of being deleted. I'll try finding a bit for Gamelin, but realize that the offer was made to the ARS for the express purpose of demonstrating notability of articles for which free sources were lacking, rather than to Wikipedia as a whole. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, first pass is that there are 314 Lexis-Nexis articles covering the last 10 years, but the most "relevant" one documents a gay pride event held in a park named after her. The second one (The Beatification of Mother Emilie Gamelin is Celebrated in Montreal - On May 4, 2002, some 5,000 people will gather in the Maurice Richard Arena for a "Celebration of a Life") is entirely relevant, but a press release. Adding her maiden name of Tavernier, I get the following results for the past 10 years:

1. Blessed are these Quebec women The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), April 28, 2001 Saturday, RELIGION,, 1031 words, HARVEY SHEPHERD

2. Blessed are these Quebec women The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), April 28, 2001 Saturday, RELIGION,, 1031 words, HARVEY SHEPHERD

3. Pope certifies miracle, moving Canadian closer to sainthood The Ottawa Citizen, December 20, 2000 Wednesday, 519 words, Bob Harvey

4. Pope certifies miracle, moving Canadian closer to sainthood The Ottawa Citizen, December 20, 2000 Wednesday, 522 words, Bob Harvey

5. Kingston nun on the road to sainthood The Ottawa Citizen, September 8, 2001 Saturday, 204 words

6. Arena to hold mass The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), May 3, 2002 Friday Final Edition, News; Briefs; Pg. A4, 91 words

7. One step closer to sainthood The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), December 20, 2000 Wednesday, NEWS,, 283 words

8. 'Blessed' one on road to sainthood The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), October 3, 2001 Wednesday, NEWS: CITY LIFE,, 415 words, HARVEY SHEPHERD

9. What's inside today's Gazette The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), October 8, 2001 Monday, NEWS,, 391 words

10. Nun slain in convent; Resident arrested. Victim, 81, worked with potentially violent men. Body found in wing used as halfway house for substance abusers The Gazette (Montreal), August 14, 2007 Tuesday, NEWS; Pg. A1 , 681 words, MAX HARROLD, The Gazette

11. 'Reaching toward God'; Although his works were Jewish in their innate sensibility,; the prolific composer always struck a universal chord The Globe and Mail (Canada), April 23, 2002 Tuesday, OBITUARIES; SRUL IRVING GLICK: AN APPRECIATION; Pg. R11, 1151 words, PAULA CITRON

There appear to be a couple of redundancies here, and two which appear to be false positives, but there are a good half-dozen sources in Canadian newspapers. So, of these, what would you like sourced? Since I can't download text for you or anything similar, I would pretty much have to make improvements on my own--you see why this would be time consuming, I expect. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Numbers 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 may all potentially be useful although they may just be replicating what's in the article. I'm curious about 10 and 11 but they're almost certainly not relevant to the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I expect they would be able to help you expand the "Death and beatification" section. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Terry Behrens

My bio page was deleted by you. I am the individual who this bio page was written about. All facts in my bio were accurate and nothing written was offensive or illicit. The facts on my bio page harmed no other individual in any way. I am requesting that my page be reinstated. Thank you so very much. I look forward to your response.

My Original Page read as follows:

Terry Behrens

Terry L. Behrens (also known as Jeri Lee) is a model who appeared in Penthouse Magazine.

She appeared in the Max Baer Jr. directed film The Wild McCullochs, where she played the girlfriend of Gary McCulloch, a character played by Chip Hand. She was depicted in the movie's poster artwork, later shown on the DVD and VHS releases of the film.

From there, Behrens worked as the Assistant to the Associate Producer for the film Ode to Billy Joe. This film was also directed by Max Baer Jr.

She was the cover model in September 1976, appearing later in feature "A Pinch of Sass" (January 1977) and "Collectors Edition: Girls of Penthouse #2", published in 1979.

Her agent renamed as Jeri Lee for Penthouse, without her authorization. The magazine went to print before Behrens discovered this, and was left with little option but to accept the pseudonym.

Behrens also appeared on Redd Foxx Comedy Hour, on 8 December 1977 as Month of January in the "Calendar Girls" skit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.12.159 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Would you be willing to coach me? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. What is your coaching goal that you'd like me to help you achieve? Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well mainly the admin bit but if you want to do anything else, I am more than willing to do it. There is already a subpage on my userpage that contains what Julian and I started even though you might prefer to redo everything at the beginning. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I am pleased to award you this barnstar for you work on 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up in turning what was essentially a list into an article. While I may have added only one additional ref and cleaned up the ref format somewhat, your work is appreciated. Thanks Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your notice of page protection at WP:V

Ha... I love the way you worded your notice of protection (saying that "I have protected the wrong version")... you obviously know how the typical content dispute argument goes... saying that right at the start adds a little humor, and prevents that particular side argument from developing. nice. Keep up the good work, and thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Can I get your opinion here? I blocked and CIreland protected, and we are trying a quick hash on how to proceed. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dino Rossi

A new user(?) Merrill Stubing has been inserting some contentious material therein. I doubt he is actually a new editor (uses edit summaries on the first of his now 50 edits starting on 26 April, but really determined to have Dino Rossi include such BLP material as " Rossi has a documented history of previously supporting earmarks as well as balancing budgets without raising taxes. As a State senator while in the political minority he approved a budget in 2003 with $25,000,000 in earmarks, and in 2007 a $433,000 earmark gift was given to a baseball team which Rossi was previously a co-owner of. " I am rather unsure of the relevance of all this, even though it appears to be an attempt to promote Rossi, in contrast to Hayek's edits. I am also, frankly, unsure that "publicola.net" is RS by WP standards - it is specifically a blog not related to any print media, and with no sign of central fact-checking and editorial control. Thanks. Collect (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A Blog is non-RS by default, but that presumption can be overcome by showing that it has appropriate editorial control. In the case of a BLP, delete first, allow people to demonstrate how and why it might qualify as an RS, but I'd be REALLY surprised if it did. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I did delete - but the editor restored it saying it was an "award winning news site" <g>. Alas - the blog has won zero awards. I think you would be entertained by his edit history - like Venus, his first edits had summaries. I seriously doubt he is a new editor at all, as he was instantly familiar with infoboxes and categories. Collect (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at [7], it doesn't appear to be entirely clearcut whether or not it's an RS. I'd take it to RSN or BLPN for more eyes. Regardless, the phrasing is terrible. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Abusive speedy delete

Please look at abusive speedy delete of Arrest of Two New Jersey Men Bound for Somalia by user:Marcus Qwertyus He is claiming that incident with international coverage is a) not notable and b) violates NOTNEWS. He implies that Fort Hood shooter was also properly nominated for deletion, and if nobody is killed, terrorism arrests are not notable. These people get away with it because nobody challenges them. Bachcell (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not! I voted keep in that article. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Guys, the big question with G10 is is the controversial statement sourced reliably? In this case, it's directly sourced to the NYT, so G10 doesn't apply. I've modified the article to include a direct quote from the NYT. I suggest you guys go straight to AfD. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

well that really helped ... now it's an abusive afd, he says we can't have articlesfor terrorism wanna bes even if it's in the New York Times. Articles for deletion nomination of Arrest of Two New Jersey Men Bound for Somalia Bachcell (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't attack the motivation of the nominator, source the article well. Being demonstrably right is the best defense against an AfD. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

sourcing assistance

JC, re your recent offer on the ARS talk page for sources, I was wondering if you couldn't check out an article I am starting, User:Milowent/On_the_Right_Track. I have a lot of bare urls to behind-paywall articles that I would like to access if possible. I was very surprised that this movie didn't have an article already in light of Gary Coleman's recent passage, as it was his first feature film. I think that hook would make it a decent DYK candidate. Thanks for any help you might be able to offer.--Milowent (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, if you want DYK timing, you might be better off not to wait for me. I'm not going to commit to optional Wikithings at this point. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't let the Man get you down JC! The best part of wikipedia is actually the creation and writing, the drama is just for social interaction :-)--Milowent (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

{{talkback|User:TFOWR/Thankspam}} TFOWR 20:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Undelete Patricia Rhomberg?

Hi Jclemens,

I'll take the risk to ask this even though I read your "unless I completely misread the article, complaining about my deletion of a G10 is a good way to get blocked".

You seem to have deleted Patricia Rhomberg a few months ago with reason G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP. I haven't found any way to view do deleted article again and I wasn't the original author either, but last time I checked it it was just a translation of the German page about Patricia Rhomberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Rhomberg). It could be changed at the time of deletion though; and I use Wikipedia in different languages so I might just be confused between translations. Anyway: as far as I knew there was nothing G10 in that article. The information in the German article is correct, cf. sources in that article. For the bio itself: all of the information can be found at her fanclub website (she's quite a 70s cult porn star, really) http://www.patriciarhomberg.com.

Please let me know if the original page can be restored (if applicable); if not I'll create a new one according to Wiki-standards.

Kind regards,

YellowOnline (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Complaining is entirely different than a polite request, such as you have posted. Likewise, while the rationale given was indeed a G10, the deletion process was a PROD--a simple proposed deletion which sticks around for a week and then is generally deleted by a reviewing admin if no one objects.

While I don't read German at all, a perusal through the de.wiki article looks like it could very well be the source of the article that was here. In the English Wikipedia, assertions that, if untrue, could damage a living person's reputation need reliable sources to exist. Since the article alleged that she was an adult film star, and only contained links to IMDB and the fan website, it did not meet our criteria for inclusion at that time. I see the German page uses IAFD as well, which, like IMDB, is not considered a reliable source.

If the assertions could be sourced to industry press, a biography published by a major publishing house, or the like, the article would have been fine as it stood. I can email you the article if you'd like to work on sourcing it for restoration. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hey again, long time no talk. Just thought you'd like to know that I've rewritten "Leave It to Beaver (Veronica Mars)" for GAN. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks pretty good, except that well over half of the "production" section seems to be cribbed from other articles we've collaborated on, and apply to the entire series, rather than to that specific episode. That would also cut out a fair number of your refs (2-3), wouldn't it? Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Shhh, the reviewer doesn't know that! I just included that stuff as background info to give the specific episode some context. But yes, some of the section is too broad. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd take it out, really, since anyone who cares about the individual episodes is probably going to have already read the overall article. I just did a quick pass through Nexis to see if I could find anything helpful, but nothing is obvious. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good deal. Hey, is that Kevin Smith blog reference via archive.org the one that I dug up? :-) Sure looks familiar. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is. Why do you ask? Are you looking for some credit or something? :P Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already gotten far more than my share of credit for our collaborations, my friend. It's actually just a nice "warm fuzzy" that I found something that's been reusably useful. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Aww, well in that case thank you very much for finding it. :) And you deserve all the credit you got! Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If I Were a Deep One

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DO

Coming soon to a Wiki near you...The Third Great Wikipedia Dramaout will be July 5-9. Please join us for serious content creation! Signup is here. You have received this message because you participated in The Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout.

I see you have signed up for the last dramaout. Consider notifying 3 good editors of this to encourage more participation. Perhaps saying

I am participating in this. Please consider doing the same! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians 15:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Fryett

Hi there, you deleted the article "Nicholas Fryett." Please undelete it because Nicholas is now well known and has been asked to produce a TV show in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.60.180 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the protection so a new article can be created, but there's no sense in restoring an article that was deleted 18 months ago. Feel free to create a new article, being sure to reference his coverage in reliable sources. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus

• Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA1

I saw you had reviewed this previously for GA, it is now up again a 2nd time, at Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2. I was wondering if you would look it over, see if there have been changes, or if the issues that held it up the first time round are still a concern? -- Cirt (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The issue with the first one was mostly the nom's unresponsiveness--I'm not sure he really understood English well enough to get the fine grammar points, and it's a shame there wasn't anyone around to help him with it. I'll see if I can get a look at it this weekend. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Check the GA2 subpage. It appears the unresponsiveness problem may still remain an issue. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin policy

Regarding your revert, can we discuss that? Would the talk page there be okayAnythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely--the talk place is entirely appropriate, and I've just posted my reasoning there. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Fiji Book Flood

My first post (probably failing to follow some instruction...) No problem with deleting this article, but there is now a blind reference (ie: a link which only leads to a dead-end) to it from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_flood. Isn't it better to unlink...? I've seen many blind references like this in Wikipedia - this is the only one which specifically says it has been deleted (generally I'm just told the page does not exist). If you don't want to unlink, how long will you leave a link leading to a page telling people it is deleted? 1 year, 2 years ...? longer ...? (Article deleted in Sept 09). Although telling me it is deleted is marginally better than suggesting it never existed, in both cases shouldn't there be a date after which a link is killed?

Apparently I sign off by 210.7.0.95 (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision of WP:BLPNAME

The issue of whether WP:BLPNAME should be revised has come up again. As you participated in a previous discussion on this guideline, you are invited to contribute your views at "Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Concrete proposals". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Master of the Monolith

Hello! You removed the prod from the article The Master of the Monolith and suggested a redirect or merge to The Black Stone. I would be fine with that. but I'm not sure what the procedure is for requesting a redirect, or who can do it. I don't have any particular interest or expertise in this subject, I just came across it while patrolling pages for the New Pages Patrol, and it struck me as undeserving of a full article of its own. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. To do that redirect, simply replace the entire contents of the article in question with "#REDIRECT [[The Black Stone]]", leaving out the quotes. Folks will be redirected to the main article, but the history of the text that someone else added to wikipedia remains viewable by non-administrators. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My real question was: can I as an ordinary editor, not an administrator, just go ahead and do that? or does it require some kind of consensus procedure? --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure! Be WP:BOLD! Just don't take it personally if someone reverts the change. WP:BRD is one of the most useful pages to look at and internalize. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

L&O:CI prods

So the fact that these articles fail to meet a single policy or guideline for inclusion means nothing. Nice work. Otto4711 (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn't necessary. There are plenty of alternatives to PROD, including simply redirecting the articles. It's entirely possible that someone a) wants to invest the effort in bringing these up to par, and b) will in fact do so someday. PROD is for deleting things that no editor objects to, not a stealth auto-delete for unwatched articles. If The Simpsons articles can be sourced, why not these? Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

AfDs for articles on fictional topics

Hi Clemens,

I am in full support of merging short articles on narrow topics into articles on broader topics until content specific to the subtopic is lengthy enough to be split off. For articles on topics that are not notable, however, the articles should never be split off from the articles on broader topics because amount of information is not the issue. I do believe that AfDs are preferable in these cases because it makes it less likely that someone will attempt to recreate the article in the future. If the article is recreated, the AfD creates a citable official discussion no matter whether the AfD resulted in a deletion or a merge. I have also found in the past that merging articles without starting merge discussions beforehand usually results in the merge being reverted, particularly when the articles are about fictional characters. While merge discussions are often helpful, merge discussions for articles about fictional characters normally garner far more comments from fans of the franchise in question than from editors interested in bettering the project as a whole; AfD discussions normally pull in more of the latter. Merge discussions also lack the benefit of being closed by an administrator and therefore the result of the discussion is often difficult to establish when there are conflicting views, as there normally are in merge discussions about fictional characters. If you feel strongly that I should not be approaching these articles in the manner that I am, I would welcome any further input you would like to provide.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh... Why deleting?

There was an article done by me about French heavy metal band Sortilège and you deleted it very fast... so I just want to know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitar Shred (talk • contribs) 14:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, which article, please? Odds are that someone else tagged it as not meeting WP:BAND, our criteria for inclusion, and I just did the actual deleting. Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Article about Sortilège, French heavy metal band active from 1981 to 1986. I finished writing it at 3:39pm and it was deleted at 3:42pm (CEST). They had released singles and albums and are mentioned by Chuck Schuldiner as one of his favourites, so I guess they are nice material for new article. Just to prove their existance here is their song on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkmuG3H1iW8 you can listen it if you want, I just want to know a specific reason why it was deleted so I would not make a same mistake twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitar Shred (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The article that I deleted back in January (the one wikilinked above) claims to have been about an alcoholic beverage. Do you know the exact name of the article? Did you create it under this username? Sorry for the confusion. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The article exists at Sortilège (band); it has never been deleted. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Talk page stalkers to the rescue! :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

When I linked it through facebook to my friend who is a bands big fan it said it was deleted, later I couldn't found it on search O_O Anyway, thank you very much for your time and effort ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitar Shred (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and redirect that spelling to the disambiguation page. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind... someone else beat me to it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, you have the best talk page stalkers evar. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That, and I can only pop into Wikipedia on breaks from class. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Przemysław Lechowski

Hello,

Because you have deleted article "Przemyslaw Lechowski" about polish classical pianist, as I suppose after hearing from Poland "the person is practically unknown in Poland", could you please visit this link:

http://www.amazon.com/Polish-Classical-Pianists-Rubinstein-Paderewski/dp/1155385837

It's a british lexicon containing biographies of several dozen of polish pianists from last 200 years. He's present there, as one of small number of contemporary musicians.

Second - to be a vice-chairman of jury in international piano competition in Russia (in age of 33) gives some evidence about achievements in his field (my source is www.myspace.com/lechowski)

If you decide the article still is not worth to reactivate, please just delete slandering description of the reason it was deleted from Wikipedia. Radek 17:36, 2 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.94.96 (talk)

I did not write that description. If you would like that article restored, all you have to do is ask. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If You decide it's worth to restore this article, please do it. I'll update it, if it will be needed. Cheers, Radek 16:50, 6 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.103.81 (talk)

Restored. Have fun improving it! Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dream Big Ventures

Hi I'm here because you deleted an article that I believe is now very relevant.

You deleted "Dream Big Ventures" because the label had yet to release any albums. The label, founded by Sha Money XL, is now on the cusp of releasing Statlanta - the long awaited debut of rapper Stat Quo. Statlanta will be released on 13 July 2010 (eight days from when I'm writing this).

In addition to releasing Stat Quo's music, Dream Big Ventures has signed DJ Whoo Kid.

Please reconsider your decision to delete the article on Dream Big Ventures. I'm new to Wikipedia so I trust that whatever your decision is in the end will be the correct one.

I'm working on another page related to Stat Quo. This page is "Sperry Park Productions" - the company that manages Stat Quo. Sperry Park Productions has released nine major projects with Stat Quo.

Stat Quo is working with Dr. Dre to create what is arguably the most anticipated hip hop album ever - Detox (Dr. Dre album).

I'm a huge fan of Stat Quo so I realise that I'm biased as to which topics have enough relevancy for Wikipedia.

Jeffmontana (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Jeffmontana (I hope I did that correctly)

Hey, can I please get a response? Thank you Jeffmontana (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Jeffmontana

So... the label has released zero albums? Not seeing any reason it needs to be restored yet. Has it gotten any trade press yet? Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Reinstate/Undelete Request

I Bleed For This? The page that was created was a concise representation of what was once the site known as I.B.F.T. / I Bleed For This?

Please undelete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.34.195 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

de-PRODing

Hi ! Not to be rude, as your work in this area is really appreciated, but it would help if you added a rationale for your de-prodding in the edit summary or the talk page, just so that editors like myself understand why de-prodding may have been appropriate for future references. Thanks. Claritas § 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty much universal, and I'm getting kind of sick of doing it, so I was thinking about making this an essay--you're far from the only one who uses PRODs like this.

1) PROD is not "stealth deletion"--if even one editor would, if they knew about the nomination, !vote in good faith to keep the article, it's not a good candidate for prod. Almost all fictional elements can be disputed in good faith, because the various fictional guidelines have been under dispute for years. There are plenty of other things that ARE deleted via PROD, and I've deleted well over 10,000 of them.

2) PROD is not a substitute for a redirect or a merge. If the term itself is a useful search term (such as most fictional elements are), then it should be redirected instead to the notable fictional work in which it appears. Any editor can make a redirect, and if a redirect is reverted, it's pretty easy to assume that a PROD would be contested, so such an article should go straight to AfD, even if point #1 weren't observed.

Every fictional redirect I've undone is on the basis of one of these two points. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read the article that you just deprodded, it's not about a fictional entity, but about a webcomic. Claritas § 21:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What, you did the Spawn one? I don't always check the history to see who does what. If you'll look at my recent contributions, you can see that I'm going through PRODs and declining the inappropriate ones. I've done a few so far today. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your standards are impossibly high. Every article was created by someone and it's likely that the person who started it wouldn't want it deleted. Under your standard, no PROD can ever succeed. The standard for PROD is not "even one editor would...!vote in good faith to keep...." It's whether the deletion is controversial or not under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. "One person might object" does not make the deletion "controversial" under any rational definition of the word.

Your assumption that "most fictional elements" are automatically good candidates for redirects is debatable, but what isn't debatable is that every conceivable article title does not translate into a suitable redirect name. There needs to be an awareness of that appropriateness before blithely declining PRODs.

The speed at which you are declining PRODs, in some cases as many as three a minute or more, indicates that you are not carefully considering the individual merits of each PROD but are instead improperly applying an arbitrary and unsupported personal standard.

Suggesting that those of us who try to use the widely-accepted PROD procedure as it is intended are engaged in "stealth deletion" is not only insulting and an assumption of bad faith on your part, it's a strong indication of a personal bias against the process on your part. This suggets to me the need for you to not mass-unPROD articles until such time as you address that bias. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I find your utter misunderstanding somewhat funny. Go look up my deletion history and see how much I know about the PROD process. Hint: I've deleted well over 10,000 articles via PROD, as well as a few thousand more speedies. I know what the processes are good for, and what they're not for. The speed at which you PRODded a slew of "Ugly Betty" characters indicates both that you did not measure each one on their merits, and that you didn't make the effort to merge or redirect them into a List of Ugly Betty characters, like should have been done first. WP:ATD is part of the WP:PROD process, whether you like it or not. Any editor is allowed to de-prod anything at any time for any reason, and even if my edits were in bad faith (which they clearly are not), your recourse is to go to AfD for a full discussion. You're always welcome to do that, of course, because that's how PROD is supposed to work. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

An edit for "Calvin's alter egos (Calvin and Hobbes)" from waaaay back...

Toward the end of April 2009, you did an overhaul of Calvin's alter egos (Calvin and Hobbes) - which was desperately needed at the time. You did a spectacular job and I really appreciate how hard you must have worked. But I have one quick question (and it's been so long that you may or may not remember.) You moved the following statement from the lead paragraph to your newly created "General Characteristics" section:

"Hobbes is not seen taking part in Calvin's Alter ego fantasies other than to criticize his choice of alternate personae."

You didn't write the sentence - it's been in the article since it was first created in 2007 - but you did add a citation to it. It has not been cited in any other version of the page, so you were the first ever to reference it. The statement caught my eye because I know it's untrue - someone else brought it up in the talk page. So I tried to find the citation in the link you provided (^[1]) and couldn't find a thing. In fact, the article seems to state the opposite (paragraph 9: "...Hobbes is often a participant, albeit a critical one (1/1/95). Hobbes also plays a role in many of Calvin's fantasies that do not focus especially on Hobbes – for example, he appears and is aware of Calvin's scheme to create duplicates of himself (1/10/90). These schemes, like Hobbes, are semi-visible to the world beyond Hobbes...")

I removed the statement, but I wanted to double check with you...because I am an annoying perfectionist. Did I overlook the verification? If you remember where in the link it says anything at all to back up this claim, please please let me know ASAP. ocrasaroon ^{blah blah blah} —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for checking with me on it, but if you've gone to the trouble to do all that research, your edit is fine. I think the original context of the sentence had to do with complete reality shifts, like Tracer Bullet and Spaceman Spiff, where Hobbes is indeed absent. It might be salvageable if narrowed to that context, but I don't think it's any big deal to have it removed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2

• Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2

Did you get a chance to look into this, with respect to the concerns raised from the 1st GA Review? -- Cirt (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the "Scribes and correctors" section was the one that had the lingering issues. I tweaked one thing where the correct phrasing was obvious to me, and tagged 2-3 other spots where attributions of statements were unclear. If he can fix these things, I think the article should be promoted, but his lack of initiative in actually looking at the sorts of edits I requested and appropriately addressing similar issues has been frustrating, but certainly not intentionally obstructive. If you think it's worth passing, by all means do so. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Urgency

i've noticed for a while that wikipedia did not have a wiki page for one of my favorite (and unfortunately most obscure) bands, The Urgency. upon creating a wikipedia account (which took literally 3 seconds) and attempting to create one, i was told a page by that name had previously been deleted, and after a bit more reading, and after visiting your page, i came upon this link. so my question is, why was this page deleted? that is, if it was in fact about the band im thinking of. the deletion summary said something about it being unreliable and having too few citaions, i think... or, that was the gist of what i got. can you give me any further instruction? i cant stand for one of my favorite bands to not have a wikipedia page.

Klembok (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC) klembok

Cybrids (Starsiege)

Given your listed Administrator goals and the cute graphic that goes with it, I'm puzzled by your removal of the prod for the Cybrids (Starsiege). You didn't give a reason in the edit summary. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Decline PROD, consider redirect or merge" was the edit summary. Most things that have a potential merge or redirect target should not be deleted outright, but instead simply redirected (if there's no content worth keeping) or merged (if there is). Deletion in any form removes all the content, and doesn't even leave a pointer to the parent topic. Jclemens (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Have you considered adding a merge tag to such articles to give an indication of such? It would help those who come along later to figure out the (second) best possible course of action. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I usually do when I have the article on my watchlist. When I'm going through and deprodding articles (which I do about once a week), I tend to just leave the edit summaries because of the typing involved. It would be nice if there was a one-step Twinkle function to both de-prod and suggest an alternative. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hugh D. MacPhie

Dear Editor,

I would like to contest the deletion of Hugh D. MacPhie. Hugh D. MacPhie is the founder of MacPhie & Company, a boutique management consulting firm; an accomplished public speaker; and the author of the book “Don’t Forget Your Cape”. Hugh is a member of the national speaker’s bureau as well as a guest lecturer at the Richard Ivey School of Business. Hugh’s work and book have recently been mentioned in several national publications including the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, the Toronto Sun and the National Speakers Bureau. Below, you can find the links to these articles.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/managing/on-the-job/what-leaders-can-learn-from-kids/article1552462/?cmpid=rss1

http://www.thestar.com/mobile/living/article/791894

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/john_snobelen/2010/07/09/14666451.html#/comment/columnists/john_snobelen/2010/07/09/pf-14666451.html

http://nsb.com/speakers/view/hugh-macphie

If you could please reinstate his page it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin2233 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There does not appear to have been an article at "Hugh D MacPhie"--can you confirm the spelling? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

The page was named Hugh D. MacPhie (there was a period, I don't know if that makes any kind of a difference). I have attached a link below. Thank you very much for your speedy response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_D._MacPhie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin2233 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Restored now, have fun improving it! Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin2233 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384

While I fully agree with the result, consensus seems to indicate that 24 hours is the bare minimum for a banning discussion to run.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough--feel free to un-close, and I'll let someone else state the obvious when the time comes. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I popped in and unclosed myself. If there's anything that frustrates me about Wikipedia, it's how much we fail to live up to our own promises, WP:BURO for starters. Sigh. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I felt the same when people whined about closing A Nobody after 24 hours, and continue to imply that he is only banned because of a personal vendetta on my part. I hadn't ever seen a more obvious case.—Kww(talk) 14:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Foot odor

I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong ^chatter 05:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WT:NOT

Hi, Jclemens. Because you helped clarify the wording at WP:UP#GAMES, I hope you can help me propose a wording at WP:NOT that discourages using Wikipedia as a game server for secret pages. I have started the discussion at WT:NOT#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Weighed in. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

CSD G10 of User:NatDemUK

Thanks for looking into it. MfD is probably not going to be worth it as the user's heading toward a ban at WP:AN. N419BH 01:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yeah, a ban would probably moot the MfD. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

jacob green recreated

You just deleted Jacob green. It was recreated immediately afterwards. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

... and deleted again by someone else, but thanks for the heads up. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Colegio Nautilus

Dear Editor, Please consider the undeletion of Colegio Nautilus. This school has been a landmark private school in the ciity of Acapulco, Mexico for over 30 years. It has been distinguished as a cultural landmark in the state because of our enviornmental programs for children applied thru government institutions and thru grants form the University of Berkeley in California and University of California Irvine and Greenpeace. This awards have only been given to this school in all the Mexican Country. The school also has the Colegio Nautilus Hurricane Fund for the victims of past hurricanes in Mexico since 1996. It has donated thousands of dollars to many relief associations. you can check online for all reference mentioned above. We have already gathered many information to update the page so its more rich in information and linked to many other pages. If you could please reinstate this page.... we in Acapulco would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.--Aoscos (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Restored per your request, feel free to improve the article to address the concerns of the person who proposed its deletion. Jclemens (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Becksguy has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Additional note on my talk page - Becksguy (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Media Matters for America at WP:RS

Hello there, JClemens. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Newsbusters etc. at Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources. Some of us believe that these hyperpartisan sources should never be used as factual sources at Wikipedia, due to their tendency to selective edit facts. Please participate in this important discussion, concerning one of Wikipedia's most fundamental editing policies, on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Question:

Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 film) and Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#Notability... when was the GNG rendered historical? I have many times lost arguments when defending the use of SNGs when a topic failed meeting GNG... and here the GNG is ignored in-toto in favor of mis-interpretations of SNGs. SNGs now have precedent? When did that happen? I must have missed the newsletter. And of course, this was not exactly a helpful request toward having a balanced discussion. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a reasonably neutral notification of an interested Wikiproject, which is fine. I've always taken a logical OR view of the GNG and SNGs, but some people prefer a logical AND, or even ignore the GNG entirely when an SNG applies. It's not a big deal if it gets re-redirected, really--the conversation itself is worth having, which was my point. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've begun addressing the concerns of "style" and "prediction", and the article already reads as far more encyclopedic as historical coverage of an ongoing topic. An interesting discussion, as certain editor's views that nothing can be notable until "after" it happens is increasingly dificult to understand. I still feel that with more work, the extensive coverage of this particular topic can merit inclusion as an stand-alone, even if the topic is never made as a film.... and at the AFD I try to undescore that notability per guideline is found in the coverage, not in the topic. My next step is to oversource the heck out of the article... specifically to address a strange concern that the topic does not have enough significant coverage.[8] And I'm also surprised that no one even supported incubation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians forget what we're here to do: inform readers. Notability is an arcane concept that is at the heart of the stagnation in Wikipedia, and AfD is a pointless battlefield--"when tigers fight, the grass suffers" and what suffers in most of these stupid debates is the actual reader. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... what is too often forgotten is that Wikipedia exists for the readers, not the editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Interesting discussion at the AFD. I think we perhaps need clarification on two things: 1) GNG allows a presumption of notability that a topic may merit a stand-alone article, not any presumption about an article itself, and 2) as the article is (now) not' about a made film, but rather a film-related topic of a project's ongoing progress, NFF is seen to be less applicable and the GNG itself moves back to the fore. I do understand that NFF is devised to help adjudge suitability of a topic, and set in place to avoid creation of articles that flatly fail WP:N and WP:NF. Toward that end, and to address the rare circumstances allowed per "occasion exception" and "commonsense", I wish to propose an addendum to WP:NFF. Current wording at NFF ends with the paragraph:

"Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines."

I think it might help lift the veil of abiguity if it were to read:

Additionally, film projects that have not begun shooting, or that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Being non-films until actual release, such articles should not make use of film article templates. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines."

Sensible? Or will such a proposal bring down the castle walls? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, but its the film project people you need to convince. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. As in some cases guideline NFF is in direct conflict with policy, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Proposed ammendment to WP:NFF. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Go stalk someone else's edits

...and step off mine. I've explained repeatedly why the flabby garbage should be removed from the RC article. "This one time in this one episode of this one TV show this guy played with a Rubik's cube" is not encyclopedic content, no matter how much you may personally love trivial nonsense. Limiting it to the impact that the cube has on art actually makes for an article of encyclopedic value. And sweetie? If I'm "edit warring" by trying to make the article something worthwhile, you're "edit warring" by reflexively undoing the edit. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem unwilling to have a conversation on your page, we can use mine.

1) Three editors have reverted you four times, none have supported you. You have no consensus for your changes, if that wasn't obvious.

2) If it's not clear, when many editors revert one editor, the one editor is the one doing the edit warring, or in this case, page move warring.

3) You've assumed bad faith. What on earth makes you think I care about you more than Rubik's Cubes in specific or IPC articles in general?

Don't make it personal, talk about what you don't like, and abide by consensus--when it's against you and you don't like it, make your points with arguments, not insults. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ircle

Please restore Ircle. This topic would easily pass AfD. [9] The recent actions by User:Miami33139 in trawling though my contributions in order to CSD/prod/AfD/MfD/etc things I've edited amount to wikihounding and tendentious editing and I'm really not sure what to do about it. Despite a formal warning/reminder from Arbcom, Miami33139's behaviours have continued with his return to editing the first week of July [10].

I'm not the only editor this individual is actively wikihounding and I think his contribution history speaks for itself. While Miami33139 certainly has made great attempts to evade detection, the patterns and signs of disruptive editing are clearly evident in both his recent and past contributions and the disruption and attempts to drive away productive editors continue to harm Wikipedia and the community.

--Tothwolf (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you have any suggestions as to how to deal with Miami33139's behavioural issues? I'm somewhat at a loss as both AN/I and Arbcom have failed to curb it and it's pretty clear he still refuses to disengage. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, walk away? Wikipedia shouldn't be the most important thing in your life, nor should "winning" around here. Remember, you can challenge any PROD at any time at all, and I or REFUND will put them back. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I did that previously and I guess I'll be doing it again since the behaviours still haven't stopped. Thanks again. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vice Verses

We have some newer and more reliable sources for the album "Vice Verses," and i think it's ready to be reinstated. If possible, and you provide the article as it was previous to deletion? Then, edits can be made to it with the newer sources. Thanks! Joberooni (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Userified to User:Joberooni/Vice Verses. Please feel free to make improvements there and move it back to mainspace once it's sourced well enough. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you! Joberooni (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

John Newsom

Jclemens: The page "John Newsom" has been deleted, and I would like it to be reinstated. The reasons are: 23:34, 18 July 2010 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "John Newsom" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Article can not be attributed to any reliable source. Article is not written in a neutral point of view. Subject does not meet notability guideline.) If there is any reason why you cannot re-post the John Newsom page, please let me know. The artist is interested in updating the page with relevant information asap regarding work history. They would also like to have a Wikipedia page in general. Thanks.

PPIAdministrator, 3:58, August 3rd, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PPIAdministrator (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 August 2010 {PPIAdministrator (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)} (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to establish notability of the individual?  Frank  |  talk  01:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the reason the article on Mr. Newsom is not being undeleted is that it contains no reliable sources--in fact, the only source cited is a personal interview, if my cursory review suffices. If an article were to be recreated, it would need to reference reliable third party sources for information about the subject. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I will do what I can to get the appropriate bibliographic information you require. Would it possible to send me the information from the deleted page as well? The page was made by a former employee, and therefore we do not have access to it. We are contacting John Newsom as well for any relevant information with proper sourcing. {PPIJRC (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)}

Deranged (wrestler)

Hello, Jclemens,

I see you removed a PROD tag from Deranged (wrestler), citing its previous AFD deletion; that article has now drawn a BLPPROD tag. I presume you can see the previously deleted version of the article.

• Do you think the article is worth a salvage attempt?

• Is there a reliable source, or anything else in the previous version worth moving into the new article?

• Alternately, any prospect of deleting this G4 as a recreation of the deleted article?

Thanks, Baileypalblue (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, G4 does not apply. Is it worth a salvage attempt? I guess that's a matter of personal taste, but I don't personally attempt to salvage professional athletes, because I lack both inclination and background. I didn't see anything with the previous version that looked worthwhile, but I admit I just did a cursory glance for G4-ability--if you seriously want to try and save it, I can get you the previous article. And while this may be a new gray area, I'm pretty sure that BLPPROD is not for recreations of deleted BLP articles, so I sent the article to AfD, because I believe that to be the correct process. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Gloria Record

In good faith!

I respectfully request that you re-post the article on "The Gloria Record," a prominent indie band of the late 90s-early 00s. All of its former members are engaged in other musical projects, and all are considered major contributors to the ever-evolving indie/punk/emo scene. (See: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fcfqxq9jld0e or just type "The Gloria Record" in at allmusic.com)

Thanks! Monika —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.225.157 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Restored per request. Please improve the article with respect to the concerns that led to it being deleted. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hearst

You were kind enough to refer me to WP:IPC (which I was already pretty familiar with). Have you actually read it yourself? It contains the words ""In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers. Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject." Please reconsider your opposition to removing unverifiable trivia and cruft from this article. Thank you. --John (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

1) WP:NOCRUFT and 2) which exact ones are unverifyable? Just because something isn't cited doesn't mean it's not verifyable. If you want to make a unified IPC section that organizes and integrates the existing cultural references, that's a great thing... but referring to IPC references as cruft is a non-collaborative insult that would have been better avoided. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you found it insulting to have a bunch of unencyclopedic passing references in song lyrics of exactly the sort the essay discourages described as "cruft", I am sorry I hurt your feelings. I took "non-collaborative insult" at having my good faith effort to clean this awful crap off the the article reverted and then being referred to WP:XYZ like some newbie. We'll have to agree to differ. Anything unreferenced in 5 days I will delete with extreme prejudice. If it is truly important to you to retain these trivia, you'll want to get googling. See you around. --John (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so dead-set against collaborative improvement, rather than wholesale destruction of content? Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"an eulogy"

What's your basis for "an eulogy" being in any way correct? killy mcgee (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

this, for example Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That article completely contradicts your position. Eulogy is pronounced starting with "yoo": it starts with a vowel, but not a vowel-sound, just as UFO in the example in the article. It has to be "a eulogy" not "an eulogy". killy mcgee (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

killy mcgee is absolutely correct here. Using a before a word beginning with a vowel looks wrong, but the first sound here is the consonant form of y. The article you linked to contradicts your position. AniMate 21:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it does seem to be so. Interesting that I've had that wrong for so long and never been called on it before. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's because the way you had it looks right. When I saw this pop up on my watchlist, I wondered why "an eulogy" was in quotation marks, until I really thought about it. AniMate 21:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

		The Original Barnstar
		Just wanted to give you props for recognizing the humor and responding in a humorous fashion here. I was hoping to catch a few people out, but it seems I caught almost everyone! I'd thought that sprinkling "proposal" all over the place would have made it clear. Ah well. On an unrelated note, I find it funny that WP:BS points to barnstars. Hrm. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... It's kinda funny that I ended up exacerbating it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WAF

Shouldn't your request be at WP:WAF instead of BIO given that you want WAF to accept the BIO criteria for fictional characters?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

One could argue that since it's also about fiction articles not complying to NAMES, it should go precisely where I put it, so just to assure good enough coverage, I listed it at WP:CENT. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

... And I would encourage you to post a viewpoint at the RfC, as I notice no one has posted one opposing mine yet. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's about WAF opposing NAMES, then it should still be on WAF. At least acknowledgement on WAF tht there is a discussion about it on other guideline pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not about WAF vs. NAMES. It's about one particular interpretation of WAF and an argument from silence: WAF itself doesn't mention the word "name" at all. Thus, when an interpretation of a general MOS conflicts with a specific one, the specific one applies, and the RFC is solely to confirm or reject whether NAME as written applies to fictional biographies. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, still a minimum of you at least leaving a note at WAF (which I've done for you), so that the people that regularly update the guideline for fiction articles can voice their opinion one way or the other with regard to how BIO related guidelines affect fiction articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course--feel free to notify any interested group. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, kudos on the neutral wording on the notification. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion criterion -- may need future updating

Was wandering around WP looking up random performers, and discovered that Siobhan_(band) had been deleted. This lead me to the criterion page and "#5 Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)."

Okay, so this band released their 3 CDs completely independent of any label (at least, I can't find any name but their own on any of the 3 CDs here in my hot little hand, even tho they're all professionally done), and I doubt they're "notable" otherwise either (other than having swamped the server when their initial freebies came out), but I subsequently had these thoughts:

I think with the changing landscape of the independent music industry, having a label is no longer a good criterion. We're going to see a lot more performers (including some important ones) putting out wholly-independent works, no label involved at all (in fact I know someone who stays pretty durn busy producing CD masters for such bands, under no label whatever, or sometimes under a label wholly-owned by the band itself). And some may go to no physical media at all, for that matter.

The same may eventually become true of authors.

Anyway, since it came to my attention, thought I would throw it up for y'all's future discussion (assuming it's not been argued before; I don't know where to look). At the moment I don't have any good notions on where to draw the line, since it may be damned hard to even track no-label or no-media releases.

Reziac (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent thought, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it ironic that Wikipedia has difficulty adapting to "new media" criteria for notability. Realize, however, that all the criteria in WP:BAND are logical OR: any given band is notable if it can be verified to meet any one of those criteria. So even if there's no label producing the albums, if they get press in a respectable outlet--e.g., a local weekly--odds are they'll be notable. BTW, the talk page for WP:BAND (Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), if memory serves (sorry, slow link here)) would be a great place to bring this up. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I just want to let you know that you're my wikipedia hero. Keep up the great work. Wm.C (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Le Grand Guignol (metal band) (Why was this deleted?)

Hello, I recently was browsing through Wikipedia to see if I could find more information on a song I was listening to, and much to my dismay, the band's page had been deleted. May I ask why it was deleted (I could not find any history in regards to the subject). If I read A7 correctly, it appears that there might have been a misunderstanding, as the band has released at least one album under their current name at least one and a half years before to the article's deletion, and four under previous names [11].

If there indeed was a problem with the article, what might I be able to do upon recreating it to meet the proper criteria? Kev-Mas Colcha (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can start a brand new article--A7 doesn't prohibit a recreation. Be sure to read WP:BAND--A7 is a speedy deletion criterion, and it's entirely possible to create an article that isn't "speedily" deleted, but still doesn't meet inclusion criteria. If you'd like to see what the previous article entails, I can undelete it and move it into your userspace so you can use that as a starting point, but there's no guarantee that there's anything useful there--and it is at least 18 months out of date. Let me know... Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be appreciated, as it would make it a lot easier, regardless of the usefulness of the original article. Thanks. Kev-Mas Colcha (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's been moved to User:Kev-Mas Colcha/Le Grand Guignol (metal band). Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Again?

I've been approached offline about the possibility of running for adminship again. You were one of the opposers last time. What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm on vacation at the moment, but given the spate of absolutely lousy and less experienced candidates I've seen lately, off the top of my head I'm thinking my oppose might be neutral this time. I'll review and get back to you in a couple of days. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So, since that RfA, what content have you been about creating or improving? I haven't seen the issues that most people griped about in your last RfA, since that RfA.... but neither have I seen anything else you've done. Jclemens (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Velocitron AfD

Ah - well spotted. You might want to comment on the following as well.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junk (Transformers)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungle Planet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigantion
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steelhaven

Thanks - Black Kite (t) (c) 17:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I try to work my way through the fictional elements DELSORTs throughout the day... :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, my fault - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steelhaven isn't a planet, it's a spacecraft, so your merge to the planets article doesn't apply (there doesn't appear to be a list of spacecraft article). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I'll fix that. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, actually there is, but it's just a copy of the category, so I've PRODded it (List of Transformers spacecrafts). Actually, I'll de-PROD it while these AfDs are going on. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So why not just merge it there, and see if anyone reverts before AfD'ing it? Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that list existed before I did the AfDs. Indeed, it looks like User:Inniverse only created the list in reaction to the PRODs. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. I hadn't checked the creation date, either. At any rate, I favor a trim-and-merge-all approach to both the planets and spaceships, and have done some work myself on the Babylon 5 planets and moons. I think it's the best compromise between inclusionism and deletionism in fictional topics. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I've got a whole load of actual Transformers characters next, but the problem is that because they appear in so many franchises there's no actual "List of ..." to merge them to in most cases. Plus most of the articles are vast slabs of plot summary and trivia ... this is one of the better ones! Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Goldfields way

Hi, I see that you deleted this. I took a bit of interest in it - I found it while stub-sorting and it seemed a good faith first edit, probably from a very young editor who lives there. I left a note on their talkpage about it. It doesn't look as if they've been back to Wikipedia since creating that stub, but even if they had done they would not have been alerted to the PROD. Could you remind the PRODding editor that it's recommended to leave a warning on the creating editor's talkpage? Thanks. PamD (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could, but so could you. Is there any particular reason you want me to do it? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

List of The Punisher comics

You know i am so glade you did that. I mean due to all my work over the years on that page. Anyways! Thanks Holmes. Do you guys like The Punisher out there? Just wondering.

Pun_Fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pun Fan (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a huge Punisher fan, no. I'm one of the volunteer administrators around here, though, and I have a variety of interests... including conflict resolution. Fact is, "List of..." is the way we start list articles around here. That's the convention. Are you interested in working within Wikipedia's conventions to create a Punisher-focused article? Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Koch Industries

Might you gaze thereon? [12]I interpret the CBS cite as being editorial in nature, and dealing with specific living persons (Koch brothers) and hence is not a good cite for the claim that they stole oil and lied about it - but consider the LA tTimes cite the other editor used to be valid for "mismeasured" and the amount of fine. Might you opine? I tend, as you know, to feel strongly about BLP issues. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So, Koch Industries is not a BLP within the scope of BLP--it's a legal entity, not a natural person. Having said that, I think there's room to find a better wording and/or better sources for that paragraph. "Found guilty" is perfectly fine if there's an actual court case that found the company guilty of something, but my experience is that most such fines are actually administrative law related, rather than jury trials, so I'd like to see a good cite for exactly what happened. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk page stalking, apologies. Here's the full LAT story, not just an abstract: [13], and a NYT as well [14]. I'd be curious to see some coverage of the final judgment. — e. ripley\^talk 20:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the motion for sanctions [15] and, just for the heck of it, a press release from Koch [16]. — e. ripley\^talk 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently [17] the case was basically dropped. Collect (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No apologies needed--all are welcome to help with issues raised here. Thanks for those sources, which indeed seem to support the wording proposed. Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

An IP called my deletion of the CBS "stole oil" wording "vandalism" <g>. Seems that a couple of editors seem to want to get the article to the sorry state it was once in (practically blaming the Koch brothers for every ill under the sun). I suggest that "misrepresented" or "misstated" is better than "stole" per the AP articles. I expect a slew more edits on the topic. Collect (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, now you have some more ammo for RS wording, at least. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for restoration of article Raymond B. Kemp

Raymond B. Kemp

Sorry I didn't catch this in time. I am on staff for the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. Woodstock Senior Fellows are chosen through a highly selective process and therefore Fr. Kemp arguably meets criterion 3 of notability.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

WTC Communications (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Keelan Downton

Restored. Please feel free to add additional information to the article, such that the notability you're asserting is clear to every editor. Jclemens (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 New York City cab stabbing

FYI, I have CSD tagged this article as it in my opinion is a recreation following the already discussed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Enright (filmmaker). Cheers,   Thorncrag  00:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, if it focuses on the event and doesn't name the non-convicted accused attacker, I have no fundamental problem with it. Thanks for the notification, though. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tim Hughes

Hey there, if I work on a Tim Hughes discography page, could I count on you for feedback if I have any questions or need help? Cindamuse (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not much into discogrphies, but I can help you emulate some of our others. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• ACK! That's about all I can do too. I did the wrong thing and looked at Elvis Presley's discography for an example. Bad move. LOL Any suggestions or alternatives? Do you think the discography is feasible at all? I don't mind merging to Tim's article, but in a discography, the article could probably better highlight all the collaborative work that he has done. Cindamuse (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • User:Michig might be of more help than I. He normally works more in alternative music, but I bet his talents would apply just fine to Christian music as well. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your neutrally worded notification. I empathize with your intentions, but I simply cannot support the current proposal or its listed variants. I think WP:YESPOV is a very important part of NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Transformers

Hi there, the problem is threefold, one that an article has been created for pretty much everything in Transformers, secondly that the franchise is so convoluted that even minor characters with no notability are spread across multiple series, and thirdly that the articles are so uniformly bad. I'd guess that the best idea would be a "Minor characters from the Transformers series" type article, and I don't think it'd be a major issue if some of these are deleted, because they'd be better off being rewritten from nothing anyway ... it'd help with the non-free image issue as well. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

IntraLinks

Noticed that you deleted IntraLinks page earlier this year - probably they were not a notable company then, but since they have gone public (IPO) on NYSE (http://www.nyse.com/events/1281088934099.html, http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=IL, they are definitely a notable company. Wanted to drop a line before creating an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysestockfan9 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, it's always OK to recreate an article once notability has changed. Let me know if you want the old article back to work with. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate the old article. Thank you. Nysestockfan9

Restored. Please make appropriate improvements to the article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

diffs

One of my huge reverts <g> is [18] for which no cite was given at all. Another was for [19] which relies entirely on editorial claims - where the BLP practice has been that editorials are usable only for opinions. "They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation." appears to me to be "contentious" even when cited as a quote from one of their opponents. Collect (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And on RS/N, the opinions are nearly unanimous that the Rich piece can only be used for opinion <g> Just rechecked to see how far off I am. Collect (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Not really sure what's confusing you

If you do not like my edits you should say EXACTLY WHY so we can get somewhere. Your critical discourse in my page did not provide any progress. If you intend for that to serve you with future ammunition for some criticism of my actions, I warn you that such such premeditation would not be consistent with acting in good faith. Cow is right in one thing: I am not as experienced around here as some of you are. However, you do not appear beneficial to what's transpiring, taking on the role of judge when a friend (not necessarily a supporter) would have been more helpful to all parties. There are plenty of critical editors in this place, but few real problem-solvers. I was hoping you were not of the formers as you so far appear to be. I am trying to solve this matter directly with Cow; please do not get in his way until this matter is concluded as you are not giving him a chance to respod without prejudice. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC). and I approve this message.

Pamela Geller

I'd appreciate your opinion on this case. I've been trying to balance out what's essentially an attack piece on Pamela Geller. He wrote me a warning for canvassing for notifying ONE editor. Now this fellow is calling for what smells like a topic ban already for violating neutral point of view. Bachcell (talk)

Bachcell had copy/pasted one of my previous comments here, complete with signature and timestamp. This deceptively made it look like I left the comment here myself, which I did not do, so I removed it: [20]. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the link. which doesn't sound very friendly: this discussion, which involves you. (stonemason89) Bachcell (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Warnings, by themselves, are hardly civility violations. Calling an article a "pig pile" (as you did on two separate occasion), however, is. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen... please! How about each of you describes the issue from his own point of view? I'll be happy to act as a mediator. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the original creator of the Pamela Geller article. While she has received a lot of coverage recently (thus making her notable), she is also a public figure with decidedly FRINGE views. From what I can tell, Bachcell seems to think that the article as I (and several other editors) wrote it was an "attack page". It wasn't written as an "attack page", any more than the Wikipedia articles on other FRINGE figures or conspiracy theorists are. Bachcell doesn't seem to think Geller is fringe or a conspiracy theorist at all, and so that's where I think the conflict originates. This has happened with other articles on similar topics, too. That's how I see it. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Creating the article in no way gives the right to keep it an attack article, when it is permissible to list articles about sex with goats and other attacks on Geller that hardly represent the bulk of her work, but to threaten blocking anyone that dares to actually post what the woman actually stated about Kagan and Obama is hardly NPOV. NPOV means "all sides" of a controversy, not maintaining one politically correct view, which apparently just a fringe nut who has nothing positive to contribute to society. I consider Stonemason89 to have been a problematic editor that hasn shown bullying behavior consistently, as evidence by a calling ONE post canvassing, and issuing a warning, and then calling for a block by merely pointing out Media Matters contested whether Kagan "admired" a Nazi thinker, it is a fact that he was cited in Kagan's thesis. That section has since been "restored" to its former one-sided unbalanced attack state. Stonemason and others are topic banning any point of view different than the attack view. Bachcell (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so here's some homework. I want each of you to make a copy of the article and try and best reflect each others' viewpoint, per WP:ENEMY. Bachcell, I want you to edit a copy of that article into what you think Stonemason89 wants to see--Stonemason89, I'd want you to edit a copy of that article into what you think Bachcell wants to see. Both of you should try and AGF with respect to the other's viewpoint--I don't think it will help anyone to write bad caricatures or hyperbole. Next step will be to assess each others' interpretation--I suspect (hope?) you will find that you're actually misunderstanding each others' goals and that you're not as far apart as you believe you are. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No one want to take me up on this? Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Been thinking

I've been thinking about it even before your prompt. Too busy right now IRL to really think enough. Hopefully in a day or two I'll have the 10 minutes needed... Hobit (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Manabu Suzuki

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Manabu Suzuki. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Donnie Park (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but please read the bold text at the top of this page, which also points you here. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jersey at 2010 commonwealth games

Can you please Clearly that why have you deleted Jersey at the 2010 Commonwealth Games

Because someone else asked that it be, that request went unchallenged for a week, and it seemed objectively reasonable to me. Jclemens (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that it was logical to delete the article as it was well sourced and i never got any message in my talk page that someone has requested a deletion for the article RahulChoudhary 14:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of sourcing, there was exactly one sentence, "Jersey will be competing in the 2010 Commonwealth Games to be held in Delhi.", which itself seems to be a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Notification for PRODs is indeed polite, but the lack of notification isn't itself a reason to not delete the topic. In the future, I suggest you watchlist articles you create. The upside to all this, however, is that you can have the article back for the asking. Would you like it restored in its older form? Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually i have created that article as a place holder article for the upcoming Commonwealth games as the games are not started yet. you should have given the article a chance instead of deleting the article RahulChoudhary 15:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you can absolutely have it back if you want it, but if you want to blame someone for it getting PROD'ed without notification, I'd take it up with the original editor who PROD'ed it. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the page with some team info, O.K? Topcardi (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the page RahulChoudhary 08:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

6RR IP at Business Plot

User:216.99.210.179 appears not to heed a gentle warning at [21]. and is now up to 6RR trying to insert Prescott Bush sans cites into the article. Collect (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Spartaz already fully protected it, but thanks for the heads up. Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Quantum Leap episodes AfD

Hi. Would you please expand on your merge all recommendation at WP:Articles for deletion/Thou Shalt Not... and specify what content should be merged? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/JD_Caselaw

I'm confused by the conclusion of the investigation; please see my comment at the above page. Thanks. user:Agradman editing as 160.39.222.244 (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd rather retire one account than having to identify them as each other, that's unfortunate, but the natural consequences (if there can ever be said to be any such thing on Wikipedia...) of your admitted behavior last year. I get the fact that that might have the same net effect as indef'ing one of them, but it's your choice to do so, not a community-imposed restriction. Does that make sense? Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why secret pages should be deleted

Hi, Jclemens. I have created Wikipedia:Why secret pages should be deleted. Any feedback on the essay would be welcomed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I like the status quo. I'm satisfied with passive "no, they're not OK" with which troublesome pages can be deleted and editors encouraged to do otherwise. I'm not going to go out looking for them personally. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding my intentions. I am not proposing that Wikipedia:Why secret pages should be deleted be elevated to a policy or guideline; I would be strongly be opposed to that. The page only serves as a summary of the arguments for deletion so that I do not have to copy and paste them every time there is a secret page MfD, thereby lengthening the MfD page—see the exchange at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Happysunshine/Edward between Uncle G and me. In a way, the essay serves the same purpose for secret pages as Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) does for high schools. One summarizes the arguments for deleting secret pages, while the other summarizes the arguments for keeping all verifiable high schools.

By the way, I fixed your DRV closure. You made a capitalization mistake with the template a few days ago as well, so remember to add {{drv bottom}} to the bottom of the DRVs you close. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bah, I wish there were automated tools to CLOSE stuff so I wouldn't forget things like that. Thanks for the fix. Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you're still awake...

...I'm wondering if this shouldn't be deleted from history. [22] — e. ripley\^talk 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Seraphimblade got it. — e. ripley\^talk 05:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, yes, I am awake, but often not as fast as people want me to be... I was off reading another website. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How dare you! — e. ripley\^talk 05:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all that FANCRUFT and NOTFORUM and NOTNEWS stuff... Wikipedia can't satisfy ALL of my Internet needs... :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

John Newsom

Hello again. I had replied to a previous message I made, but since it has long since been relegated to the archives, I thought I might contact you again. I was wondering if you could possibly send me the content from the deleted John Newsom page so we might take that information and implement what we can for his new page. The person who made the deleted page no longer works with us, and we therefore have no way of getting the info ourselves.

Thank you very much! You're help is greatly appreciated. PPI

{PPIJRC (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)}

CSD G4

Allows for the speedy deletion of any namespace page if it is a recreation of previously deleted material. That includes categories. The category was deleted in November 2007 following a CFD that supercedes the one you cited. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a G4-related question about your closing comment of Samuel Galindo at WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 31, "Note that technically, all the G4s for this content were improper, since it survived AfD once here, even though it was later deleted in a second AfD." The lead of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion supports your interpretation as currently worded, but I think that it makes more sense for G4 to refer back to the most recent result. User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? started a discussion at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#Clarification. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll follow up with my reasoning there to keep the arguments in one place, but they are remarkably similar to what I wrote on Cow's talk page in reply to the above post, but he deletes everything, so you'll have to seek it out from history. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting articles

I ask that you please take these words to heart as I mean them sincerely and with good intentions. I do not mean to attack you but instead to help. I feel I should tell you what I see here and hope you can attempt to see it through my eyes.

I think you are doing a great disservice to the world of people who do or otherwise would use Wikipedia to acquire information. You censor the free dissemination of factual or referenced statements and you do so in significant amount. It ought to be of no consequence whether or not you think such (censored) statements are irrelevant, uninteresting, or representative of a faulty point of view. That ought to be up to the reader to decide how to feel about the information. To assert that you should have that control is to claim ownership (control) over the minds of all who would otherwise be exposed to that information and who would (were it not for your censorship) be able to use their own perspective to validate or invalidate the information. Instead you decide for them that the statements are invalid and unworthy of consideration. I presume you do this without bad intentions, but I must say that I see it as arrogant nonetheless. You refuse others the ability to think for themselves with regards to statements that are presented in an objectively factual manner, references and all.

The purpose of monitoring the content of Wikipedia is to stop vandalism from people who are intentionally leaving false information and to make sure things are presented in a way so as to reference statements "according to", rather than simply declaring facts with no basis. The purpose of monitoring the content of Wikipedia is not to censor it.

I say we ought to respect those around us and see them as equal human beings with their own individual sovereignty and self-ownership, rather than thinking that some ought to control others. Do this and you shall respect another person's right to think for themselves. Respect other people's right to command their own minds and you will lose the desire to censor that which they choose to consider. Please rethink what you've been doing and consider changing your ways.

--— sloth_monkey 07:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And I ask you to take this statement to heart: Read the text at the top of the page, including the associated page about how to request things be undeleted. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your response is as though you did not hear the message behind my words. The point is that there should be no authority such as yourself which asserts power over everyone to decide what can and cannot be shared as information. Imagine living under an oppressive, tyrannical government which holds a tight grip of control over what the controlled populace can say to one another, where you cannot share with your neighbors information which you view as truthful and which you explain in a truthful way containing statements according to factual observations. Such is the state of Wikipedia where so many things are continually censored, governed by those like yourself, rather than the rule of free speech.

I suspect that in rejecting the above you are locked into a control-oriented view of things. You may not recognize how what's going on here at Wikipedia is like an overbearing government, but the same effects occur here in controlling what people are allowed to see, thereby controlling how they form their view of things, in essence controlling their mind, as well as controlling what people are allowed to say, thereby controlling their freedom of expression and communication. It is oppressive government and you are the one doing the governing.

I don't feel very motivated to continue this discussion as I think it would probably take an enormous amount of effort to actually change the mind of someone deeply entrenched in a mode of control-oriented thinking. I accept that there are people who think differently here and I attempt to be okay with that. I just wanted to make at least some small effort to have my thoughts heard here. Particularly considering so much else of what I've shared has now been censored.

--— sloth_monkey 01:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no discussion. You're arguing not against me, but against deletion of articles and content restrictions in general. Even if you were somehow to convince me of your points, you have a thousand other administrators who have signed up to enforce the same community-enacted rules. We are not the masters of Wikipedia, we are its servants. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey Quality Prediction Please undelete page

I request you undelete the page Survey Quality Prediction.

I am available for rationale as needed, thanks. Also on my own talk page I have added a bit more information about what Survey Qualtiy Prediction is at the bottom. It is more than a single program, and the article probably needs to be rewritten to reflect the field of study in general.

Tomgruner (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please go ahead and improve the article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Pulsipher

Hey there. Lewis Pulsipher wrote an article about himself, and the article was put up for speedy deletion. If there's anything you can do to salvage this one, please do! :) BOZ (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I declined the G11, because he's really written a retrospective, but it still could be cleaned up and it's borderline. Why don't you take a whack at it first while I'm in class? Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm at work, myself, but I'll see what I can do a couple of hours from now. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Here, which guideline specifically is the one that you're referring to as being constantly debated? Ta, Bigger digger (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm pretty sure I was referring to NOT#NEWS. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. Bigger digger (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Hindu temples in Poland

Why have you cancelled this article which was an equivalent of other similar articles "List of Hindu temples..." e.g. in Nepal, Canada, Germany, and many others? Why my article "List of Hindu temples in Poland" has no right to exist? In my opinion your action was simply vandalism based on religious discrimination. You're simply destroying other people work in Wikipedia without any serious reason. I'm deeply disappointed with en.Wiki and its administrators. I expect you to quickly cancel your irresponsible action. Or I'll write an adequate opinion about your vandalism. SETI3 (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the messages at the top of the page before complaining. Had you actually bothered to do so and made a request for it to be undeleted, I would have restored it by now. Jclemens (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Off course I've read these messages before, but I still don't realise why this deletion procedure was so quick and irresponsible? One Christian fanatic marked my article without any serious reason, and you just simply deleted it without any discussion (I can't find any such discussion). This complete lack of consideration for other people work is simply revolting! How would you feel if somebody deleted your article on some completely unfounded and unjust request? Destroying is very quick and simple, but try to create something and you'll see it's not so easy. Anyway, I've restored my article myself and will do so in the future. SETI3 (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the WP:PROD process, and feel free to use the watchlist and review changes once per week to spot any unwanted PRODs on articles you believe to be valuable. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Beau Parry

The article Beau Parry was deleted. Will you consider a resuscitation based on a firm reference from an official Carolina Football Media Guide from 1995. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Sc0036e862.jpg Here is another convincing reference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lBWJdy48KU (

File information

Description	English: Carolina Football Media Guide
Source	University of North Carolina 1995 Football Media Guide
Date	1995-04-01
Author	UNC-CH Athletic Department- Football
Permission (Reusing this file)	See below.

)

Thank you!

Hello Beaurp! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Beau Parry - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

--Beaurp (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page stalking in progress -- User name would represent a clear conflict of interest with regards to the article at hand, potentially leading to the probability of the article being for self-promotion as due to the nature of the article and the nature of the resources at hand, the only information which could be included would be that which was provided on a first-party basis. It would, realistically, be almost impossible to find a substantial number of third-party verifiable sources. I'm also not one to go against a YouTube video simply because it is on YouTube, but the video speaks for itself when it comes to the principle of promotional advertisements. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 02:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Restored and userified to User:Beaurp/Beau Parry. Please address the sourcing and promotional concerns before moving the file back into main/article space. If you need help doing that once you've improved the article, ask me or any other admin or experienced user. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Appeal

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Jclemens, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

For Your Interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Armageddon_theology WritersCramp (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well now, you just went and shot yourself in the foot on that one, didn't you? Live and learn! Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice right back at you

Consider this notice that I consider your statement to be a declaration of intent to disrupt the project. If you don't like PROD as a process, then address it at the appropriate venue. Pre-emptively deciding that you will take it upon yourself to attack the edits of a specific editor on the basis of your disagreement with a process is disgusting. Accusing me personally of "sneakiness" constitutes an unacceptable personal attack. Any further messages left on my talk page will be reported as harassment. We're done. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You are advised

...that any further messages on my talk page from you will be reported as harassment. Leave me alone. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And if you'd read the message that you claim to have deleted unread, you'd see that I will comply with your request to the extent that it does not preclude me from giving you feedback, as an administrator, on your initiation of PROD requests that I handle. If you're not PRODing things, then I see no reason I would need to contact you in the future. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. I know you are opposed to a mass nomination; however, I agree in part with SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) who wrote that "A precedent setting mass deletion is appropriate. Doing them one by one is disrupting MfD, like covering the whole page in snow." Nominating 10 every week from Wikipedia:User pages/Secret pages to be deleted is flooding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, so I believe that a mass nomination to close this matter is appropriate. I have asked several users (one example to place {{db-userreq}} on their secret pages and they complied. Most of the remaining secret pages nominated for deletion are from people who haven't edited Wikipedia in two years. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll probably revisit this in a day or two, rather than weighing in initially. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP cite?

[23] appears to assert that

Cade had abused painkillers and steroids during his career in WWE, leading to questions about how much the company knew about his health.

is in [24].

I, alas, did not find such a claim in the article used, however the other editor states that is not true. it is in the cite, and you are clearly deleting material that counters NPOV

I have read and reread the article in The Atlantic without finding any such claim about Cade being a known abuser of drugs and speculation that WWE knew about it. The other editor appears, moreover, to be set and determined to link McMahon to drug abuse - which is not borne out by the cite given. As this is a BLP, I think the issue is important. Might you look in and tell me where I did not read the full cite? Collect (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That material is not in that citation, I agree. I will warn the user. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

warned user. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense. This is referenced info, and maybe it isn't in that specific citation, but it is in the page. This is part of an ongoing group of personal attacks by Collect, who has been exercising bad faith editing and seems to feel it is right to use you as his goon. I have put a new reference directly on that statement, which is overkill, because the statements are true. I also want to make it clear that Collect never gave any reason for his deletion of Nowinski's rebuttal, which was cited.--Screwball23 talk 18:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear: YOU need to make sure every statement you add or re-add is supported appropriately by the reference that you attach to that specific statement. Your attitude in this response is poor, even though the additional cite you added appears to be sufficient. If you want to object to Collect's behavior, do what he just did: provide specific diffs where an edit violates policy, as he demonstrated that yours did. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Material not in the cite has been added again - I had trimmed it to the point where the cite was properly presented, but the other editor not only has changed back to his opriginal wording, but renamed the section "1992 Ring Boy Affair" and altered the reference in another page to "1992 Ring Boy Affair" contrary to any consensus on the page, and a tad contrary to WP:BLP. I fear WP:OWN is also present. This apparent disbelief in WP:BLP may well be a problem (sigh). Collect (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please? Jclemens (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

[25] where he tells me "Quit lying." etc.

[26] "And to top it all off, you thought you could get your lackey, User:Jclemens involved, claiming that I was making uncited statements? Collect, you are sinking to a new low, and I recommend you shape up your actions, or I will get some arbitration involved."

[27] "Undid revision 384452011 by Collect (talk) - Sorry, you should actually read the references unless you want to be reported for vandalism)"

[28] "that is not true. it is in the cite, and you are clearly deleting material that counters NPOV)"

[29] wherein he remanes the "Tom Cole" section "1992 Ring Boy Affair"

[30] and 17 minutes later changes "Tom Cole" to "1992 Ring Boy Affair" in another article.

And in History_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment see numerous WP:BLP violations (large amonts of uncited claims, and such edits as [31] which clearly impact living persons Edit summary is "inserted some good info with references; it might need some copyediting to avoid redundancies with old material, but it is solid info" Using, again, primary cite of US law without any secondary source to explain what it means, and lots of material inserted which is not in any RS reference at all. In short - that article is a BLP nightmare in itself <g>. Were these enough diffs? Collect (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The first four are civility-only, as far as you allege. File a WQA or ignore 'em

At least one RS, Politico, appears to use the term "ring boy" affair, so that's not a BLP violation per se. Still tacky and COATRACK, seems to me, but not a blockable offense in and of itself.

The last one, I'll go fix. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, History of World Wrestling Entertainment was absolutely terrible. I've excised much material with extreme prejudice. It seems like almost no one who edits or edited that article cares to cite anything at all. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

[Aside – a quick note of apology for my unintended reversion, sorry about that, you got to it before I could restore your comment! Sorry about that, do of course feel welcome to delete this. . dave souza, talk 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC) ]

Admin help requested

Given that you provided an opinion on the Afd on Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer it would be appropriate to ask for your help on: User_talk:Malke_2010#WP:WIKIHOUND_warning. I am really trying to avoid an edit war here. The issues are listed on User_talk:Malke_2010#WP:WIKIHOUND_warning. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So, for right now, I would suggest disengaging. Yes, you were obviously "there first" and have made substantial edits to every article you've listed, and he's a recent newcomer. However, you don't WP:OWN the articles, and the fact that they form a pretty narrow topic is a reasonable defense against wikihounding accusations--he can simply say "What? I was just editing a bunch of RC articles, how was I to know this guy was already editing all of them?" and have some plausible deniability. So disengage, don't escalate, and use the dispute resolution process (WP:3O is a good start between two editors) to demonstrate your good faith interest in the articles. Oh, and ask for more help if anything else starts going sideways. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

e/c Yes, and I I have no claims to ownership, but the flurry of changes started right after the 4th vote on that Afd. I did ask for a 3rd Opinion and it resulted in the Afd after the 3rd opinion arrived. I am also following WP:BRD. And there is an ANI notice at the same time if you would like to comment on that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

History2007 continued to post on my page and reverted a great deal of work I'd just put in on Mariology (Roman Catholic). I've had to resort to go here: [32]. Apparently, this editor has caused a great deal of trouble for many other editors, which seems to explain why other editors have stopped going to these articles. Another editor has suggested an RfC/U.Malke 2010 (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised

You always struck me as being fairly honorable, even though we disagree on many things. How can you condone dragging on a two-month trial indefinitely when it was clearly described as a two-month trial?—Kww(talk) 00:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a feeling I hold terribly strongly, but given the choice between "scrap what's been done so far" and "Struggle along until it improves", I prefer the latter. At the same time, I do not have any illusions that anything enacted will ever be temporary, so I was never expecting it to be two-months-and-then-off, even if that was how it was phrased initially. Note that I didn't bother to vote until a bot dropped a notice directly above. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

inre User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?

User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of indef-blocked abusive puppetmaster User:Otto4711. His edit contributions, AFD comments, and AFD nominations will require scrutiny. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Something...

Can you email me? Unless I'm going insane, you don't appear to have it enabled, and I've got something you may be interested in regarding what you posted to my talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Emailed. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Estelmo for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Estelmo, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estelmo until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for sensible arguments and unfailing courtesy in deletion debates.AMuseo (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Which one or ones in particular struck you as noteworthy? Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wow...

{{tb|Neutralhomer|Wow...}}

Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

RE:September 2010

Hi. You are correct. I thought that was a common vandalism and reverted. That signature and the removal of "referenced" content made me think that. I didn't notice that the "source" was an image shack file. Thanks for warning me. I will be more careful. Regards.” T_eLeŞ(PT @ L C G) 01:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We all make mistakes now and then. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

userfications without any notification

User:Viriditas userfied on his own my essay User:Collect/Josh Billings without even notifying me or anyone else. Then TFD User:The Four Deuces decided it should have the WP:KNOW redirect deleted. As it is referred to by an arbitrator in the CC procedings, I would like it restored to WP:Josh Billings. The acts by Viriditas and TFD without either of them even giving me a courtesy notification are dubious at best. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Figured a straight copy was sufficient in this case -- then found the "move" buton - well-hidden <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So everything is OK now? Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless they act up again - thanks. Collect (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

which Viriditas did. As expected. I think akll is hashed up now <g>. Collect (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And he has done it yet again. [33] Might you explain that where a dispute exists, that reverting more than 3 times is still a 3RR violation? Thanks! [34], [35] Collect (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved back and protected in place. I will be sending him a note. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. The essay is not exactly controversial, to be sure <g>. Collect (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy request

Hi, Jclemens. Would you mind reverting this edit, please? I appreciate your housekeeping (I wish people would use that "resolved" template more regularly) but I just saw the thread, and I don't see it as resolved at all. Rather than my performing a revert, or putting in some cumbersome language at the top to indicate my disagreement, I thought it would be more polite to ask you. Also, I realize Screwball has behaved very badly, that the block was called for, and that you have more than ample reason to be annoyed at him for the insults he directed your way. But I have to say that I find the phrase "cluebat applied by..." needlessly disrespectful, regardless of who it's applied to. I know other admins have used it, but as I understand it, a block is supposed to get an editor's attention. Using after-the-fact remarks like that one, imo, just fans the flames and makes it harder for an editor to examine his own behavior. I think it's likely to fuel an editor's anger and so focus his attention outwardly, on any unfairness he may have seen or imagined in the process that led to his block, when he needs to be looking at himself. I don't want to seem holier-than-thou about your using the phrase, though; I might very well have done the same if anyone had made remarks about me of the variety that Screwball made about you. I might have allowed myself the luxury of the remark, too, in other words, but I'm thinking it's not really a "best practice" kind of thing to do so. ;-) Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your request is very polite, almost enough to overcome the fact that Screwball has exhausted any measure of good faith. Respect is a two-way street, however, and if Screwball had ever extended even the smallest modicum to me, he would receive it amplified in return. At this point, though, my expectation is that he is gone from the project: maybe not banned, but he's had plenty of time to learn and failed to do so. I won't be the one banning or blocking him, nor the one urging the admins who do so. I will do more than say "See ya! Don't let the door hit you on the way out." Oh wait... I just did. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you really have a problem with it and want to just delete the entire "cluebat" comment, I'm not going to put it back. I wouldn't mind that... I just don't feel the need to revert it myself. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave the wrong impression, I see in retrospect; sorry. I didn't really mean to focus so much as I did on the nature of your comment as on the fact of the thread being closed, informally speaking. I wouldn't have asked you to revert just for that very understandable "cluebat" comment alone. As I said, I would probably - well, almost certainly - feel as you do if I'd been in your shoes dealing with the user's very nasty and completely unwarranted slurs. Perhaps I should have said right away that I'm really sorry you were exposed such utter crap. People here know those kinds of attacks mean nothing at all about the intended recipient, but rather say a great deal about the one who makes them, of course, but I know that's small comfort for having had to put up with that kind of trash.

Anyway, my main reason for asking if you'd revert wasn't that I objected to your comment so very much, although I realize in retrospect that I gave that impression. Rather it's just that I don't consider the matter completely dealt with, and it would be kind of odd (and unproductive) to continue posting to a thread that had been marked "resolved". I just didn't want to revert (to "re-open" the thread) without giving you the opportunity to do it yourself first, since I know no one really appreciates being reverted by another user, even if it's just for a procedural reason. I'm not in any hurry to comment there, though, and I have to be offline for awhile anyway, so I'll leave it alone for now. If you'd like to revert (not for your comment, but just to remove the "resolved" tick) please go ahead. Otherwise I'll probably come back to the section in 12 hours or so and do that myself, before adding any comments, just because it would be silly to comment in a "resolved" thread. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if that was all you wanted, then you could/should have just un-resolved it and added more. I've gone ahead and done so, so go ahead and add your additional material there. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why, but writing can be challenging for me: I sometimes get lost in my own words and end up writing a dozen sentences where one would be better. ;-) Thanks very much,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: WP:Josh Billings

The page history of Wikipedia:Josh Billings shows that I have only moved the article from project space once. My two subsequent edits reverted cut and paste moves. Moves need to be achieved using the appropriate procedure, as you have now remedied. Collect was asked several times to do this and refused. The essay on "Userfication" says, "articles intended as a joke, an essay, patent nonsense - or even an earnest attempt to cover an unencylopedic topic - can be userfied, as such material would generally be permitted in user space." As for the part I am referencing in my edit summary, I am referring to a best practice that has been in place since 2007.[36] Are you saying that unestablished essays in project space that are no more than orphans, should not be moved to user space? As for whether I am on best terms with Collect, you'll have to ask him. He's banned me from his user page on the basis of this discussion. I'm posting this reply here because I was just about to archive my talk page when you added your comment. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief. At this point, I'm in favor of you both (Yes, Collect, I know you read this page...) accepting a voluntary interaction ban, or having one imposed on the two of you by the community. You both have been around long enough to know when to disengage and go off and do other things, and neither of you appears to be doing so. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Category_talk:Wikipedia_essays#Move_to_userspace and this discussion for further information. The essay move was made in good faith per best practices. I am not involved in any outstanding, interpersonal conflicts with Collect, so I do not know what you mean by an interaction ban. Collect is, however, involved in several talk page discussions on articles that I am participating in at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Might you explain User:Viriditas/Fox_News_Channel_reverts_and_disruption which appears on its face to be an "attack page"? WP:ATTACK is clear. Collect (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Recently I tried to edit Fox News Channel, and made a series of five separate edits, all of which were blanket reverted and changed by four different editors in a matter of minutes. In each instance, I asked for an explanation on the talk page for the revert. None was ever given or produced. My user subpage shows a total of four reversions and a fifth, partial-revert. Two of the diffs show Collect reverting once, and then changing another one of my edits, which acts as a partial revert, since the content was moved out of the lead section. This kind of tag-team edit warring is considered disruptive (please see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing) and I hope this evidence can be used to stop this from happening again. What would you recommend that I do with it? I was thinking of breaking it down into five separate noticeboard reports, and using it as evidence. Perhaps a general RFC on the topic would suffice. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:ATTACK. If you intend using it as "evidence" the requirement is that you do so quickly and not just leave it in userspace. As an attack page, it may be deleted by any admin at any time without edit summary. Thanks. Collect (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at my evidence page, I don't see anything that could be construed as an attack on any user. I have only documented a pattern of disruptive edit warring. If you see anything on my page that could be construed as an attack, please let me know. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Abdi Behravanfar Deletion?

Hi , I see you have deleted the Abdi Behravanfar article. I had written it. and I had enough sources for that. what was the reason for deletion? please bring it back.Bbadree (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, the sourcing for that article was very weak at the time it was deleted. User-contributed sites are not sufficient sources for biographies of living persons. I've restored the article, please improve the sourcing soon. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Your question

Did I get the answer wrong, or insufficient, to the question which you posed at my current RfA? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, neither. You got it spot on, but I'm just waiting a bit--will probably !vote this morning. I have no idea why you're drawing all the opposes since you're clearly a better candidate than 1/3rd of the passel of candidates we just shoehorned in... Jclemens (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Whew, I was worried I hadn't got it right. As can be seen from the A1 debacle, which I'm afraid may have poisoned the well, sometimes drawing conclusions from analysis of policy can lead one onto thin ice, and I haven't had very much practical experience with those two policies. Thank you very much for your confidence and support. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARS

In reply to your question, I have absolutely no idea how it could apply to anything besides articles. Apparently Alpha Quadrant and Colonel Warden feel differently, however. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Then someone needs to read them the riot act: ARS is not an inclusionist cabal, it's a project to improve improvable articles currently facing deletion. Everything else is their own time, not an ARS project. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is someone sticking the {{rescue}} tag on a userpage the final proof that the tag is merely shorthand for "please come and vote Keep on this"? Perhaps we need a TfD rather than an MfD here (I couldn't be bothered less about DF's userpage). Black Kite (t) (c) 02:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, I can't speak for how other people use it. I have never stuck the template on any page other than an encyclopedia article that I believed was actually notable, that had appropriate sources, which I needed help finding and adding. It frustrates me to no end when people misuse it. It's kind of like using Amber alerts for custodial interference: It's not what it's there for, and using it for that quickly erodes the moral authority.

I'm tempted to throw up my hands and start something new, with explicit rules to prohibit precisely this sort of abuse. Anyone with me? Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be up for that. I'm pretty damned inclusionist, but haven't wanted to come near the ARS because of antics like those of Dream Focus. WikiProject Sourcing, perhaps? —chaos5023 (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for explicit rules preventing abuse, I just don't know how something could be set up that would still work to draw people to improve an article that couldn't be abused the same way {{rescue}} sometimes is just to canvass, since that's already (theoretically) against ARS rules. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apologies if that was too general - of course I didn't mean everyone used it in the abusive manner, merely that it is being used in that way and is being regarded by some editors as a shorthand for canvassing. And your ideas below I throughly support, btw. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a thought though - instead of TfDing the rescue tag, how about rewriting it so that it needs a compulsory parameter where the user writes a policy-based rationale as to why they believe the article is rescueable and how this could be achieved - a bit like the PROD tag in reverse. If the user omits the parameter, I know there's a way of coding it such that it comes up with something like "but no reason has been given for this tag being used" in red text. That way, when used properly it's fine, but it prevents it from abuse... Black Kite (t) (c) 05:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If {{rescue}} is being rewritten, making it render as "This is an invalid attempted use of the {{rescue}} template" if placed in a non-mainspace page would be a lovely addition. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that can definitely be done - the AfD template {{Afd1}}, for example, spits out an error if it's not in mainspace. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. But I'm still mulling over systemic changes, as outlined below. Wikipedia processes aren't like children, where you've got to keep moving forward with what you've accomplished so far, they're more like computer programs that you can rewrite from scratch once you figure out what should have really happened. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• VernoWhitney says "I have absolutely no idea how it could apply to anything besides articles." The ARS tag has been explicitly configured to work with other types of XfD and its instructions indicate that it may be used for them. MfDs are, by their nature, rather varied and so each case will offer differing opportunities for rescue efforts. In the case of DreamFocus's user page, we see that that page is quite large and rambling. Rescuers might assist DreamFocus in restructuring the page into a hierarchy of subpages. Doing this requires some technical know-how and this is an example of the sort of assistance which a rescuer such as myself might provide. Editors who have "no idea" should please allow for the possibility that others may have imaginative ideas. This is one of the core ideas of Wikipedia - individual editors are not required to know it all as, by working together, we are able to master difficult tasks. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  You know what? I'm not buying it. If DreamFocus wanted help, he can ask for it. One person slapping a rescue tag on another user's user page that's been MfD'ed is almost as aggressive an action as nominating a user page for MfD to begin with. If DreamFocus wants his userpage to look or be different, he's certainly perfectly capable of doing so. If DreamFocus wants help from the ARS on his own page, he'd be better off just posting at WT:ARS and asking for specific help. I expect that his page will be kept because 1) Wikipedia has a grand tradition of letting editors say almost anything within reason on their own talk pages, and 2) if it was deleted, he can just recreate it anyways. Thus, placing a rescue tag on it does almost, but not quite, completely nothing to actually help DreamFocus out, but it tars each ARS member who might want to provide him support with the "inclusionist cabal" brush. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• You are not required to buy anything. If you don't agree or want to assist then you don't have to. What you are required to do is assume good faith. Do you doubt my good faith in placing the tag and my comments above? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You've asserted nothing but possibilities. If you want me to accept or reject a specific assertion, feel free to make one. Do tell: what, precisely, was each facet of your motivation for placing the tag? Did you expect it to attract sympathetic voters? What issues did you see in that page that a rescuer could or should help with? What did you do to communicate those expectations? I'm all ears: explain yourself at whatever length you see fit. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• So far as the !voting is concerned, I would expect it have to have little effect or a negative effect. Most of the usual suspects have already commented and the tag seems to attract negative voters as much or more than rescuers. Other aspects are that the tag contains search links. Maybe DreamFocus's page is referred to elsewhere on the net. There is also a point of principle - it is quite clear that the tag is intended for use on any type of XfD and the contrary idea needs nipping in the bud. Stating that rescuing is simply impossible in such circumstances is improper because it begs the question - it assumes a negative outcome before detailed work has been done find out. When I start a rescue, I often have no idea what I'm going to find. Sometimes I am disappointed that I find little, sometimes I am pleasantly surprised. For example, see Retail in Aberdeen. This did not sound a promising topic but I took a look and found some great sources. Placing the tag there has just attracted a negative vote from SnottyWong and so the idea that it's a wonderful canvassing trick seems to be quite unsupported by the evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Whether or not it was your intention, you appear to have failed to answer my question on your personal motivation and expectations. I'm still willing to listen, should you choose to provide a personal and specific explanation of the edit in question. Jclemens (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

• Names: Article Overhaul, Cooperative Article Improvement, something along those lines.
• Process:

1) Article Overhaul is a collaborative approach which replaces and includes merge/redirect and AfD discussions.

2) Article Overhaulers will work in teams of several editors. Ideally, each team would include an admin, but that may not be realistic. Each team member agrees to review every article selected for that team's action, with the threefold goal of BURDEN, PRESERVE, and meeting inclusion standards. Members aren't required to share opinions on disputed parts of guidelines, but they are expected to collaboratively work towards the most effective improvement to meet community norms, which may differ from their own opinions.

3) If an article is brought to an AO team, the team votes to reject or accept, much like arbcom doesn't take every case. The idea isn't to handle things that have a clear outcome already, but things that, upon investigation, have a reasonable expectation to move from "not meeting inclusion criteria" to "meeting inclusion criteria". Rejected cases go to "old" processes, and AO involvement ends. Thus, unlike the {{rescue}} tag, admission to this process requires a discussion and consensus: no one person can abuse it for private ends.

4) AO teams are expected to include a wide spectrum of Wiki-viewpoints. The fundamental question each editor must ask throughout the process is "what will it take to get this article up to snuff?" where that includes the entire group consensus.

5) All AO cases are public and open to non-voting input from any editor. All articles currently being worked on will be tagged and categorizedappropriately, and improvements are welcome from any editor under normal editing expectations.

6) AO team members are expected to make changes, comment on other team member's changes, and work together on an article until one of several consensuses is reached:

• This article now meets inclusion criteria
• The team has collectively lost hope that it can meet inclusion criteria, in which case it may be, in order of preference, merged, redirected, transwiki'ed and deleted, or deleted.
• The team is unable to reach a consensus, in which case the article, as improved, will be "automatically" sent to AfD for dispositon. (Remember, the initial vote to accept a case indicates an agreement that there are serious inclusion questions up front)

7) When a properly constituted AO team makes a consensus decision, that decision is implemented as if it were an AfD discussion: the article is deleted, or the keep decision is recorded on the talk page/article milestones. Appeals by editors who don't agree with the outcome are directly to DRV. Any AO team who is overturned at DRV (that is, their own group consensus is so radically out of step with the community that the community will not sustain the process) is disbanded and its membership reshuffled onto other teams.

8) Areas of historical contention, starting with anything where there are discretionary sanctions and/or arbcom rulings, are off-limits to AO.

That's rev 0. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What I would be looking for in an AO team member:

• Focusing on the problem, not the other editors. That is, still being able to assume good faith across the Wikipolitical spectrum.
• Not an absolutist who only sees things in terms of deletion or retention, but someone who explores how the information in an article should best be presented.
• Enough experience with Wikipedia AfDs to understand how broken the process is, and a commitment to not get wrapped up in the same sorts of tug-of-wars. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Other thoughts

• Much like an arbitration case is not artificially limited in scope, this process will be empowered to encompass multiple, logically connected articles.
• Previously deleted or redirected material is fair game, should it be restorable (e.g., no BLP, copyvio, etc...) and of benefit to the ultimate solution. Jclemens (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I feel like I should contribute deep thoughts or something, but really I don't know what to say but that it looks great to me. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Please see WP:ACID which is something of this sort. That does not seem to have worked and my guess is that one reason why is that the pay is awful. This is also the reason why AFD and ARS are imperfect - doing work there is thankless. Editors who try to be constructive and exert themselves to find sources tend to find that they are discriminated against, as we see at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Silver seren. If Silver seren had just put unconstructive delete votes at AFD instead of working to save articles, you'd find him sailing through RfA with lots of "Sure, why not?". Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• I honestly think it's a great idea. Would you need to necessarily create a new "group", or could the ARS transform into this? I have a few comments:

1. Trying to create an organization which supersedes AfD in the way you describe seems like a lofty, unrealistic goal. It's doubtful that you'd be able to get wide consensus to grant this special ability to certain small groups of users. The only practical way to make that happen would be to require some kind of RfA-like procedure as an entrace requirement into AO, so that only editors who fit your description of "What I would be looking for in an AO team member" would be allowed. It would be more realistic to propose that when the AO group decides that the article cannot satisfy inclusion criteria, then it automatically is listed at AfD with a link to the AO discussion and decision.
2. AO members should voluntarily refrain from !voting in AfD discussions on any articles that they've participated in improving. This will prevent it from becoming another means of legal canvassing. In other words, someone nominates an article for AfD, and another editor decides to ask an AO group to "rescue" it. If the group decides to rescue it, then there is an understanding that they will not !vote in the AfD. This will prevent people from going to AO solely to bring attention to the AfD and get more Keep votes.

I'll think about this some more and perhaps add some more comments later. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool and Talk:The Political Cesspool

Hi, you deleted this article and its talk page last year after it was prodded, but it was re-created and promoted to FA, and is now being proposed for the main page. Would you mind undeleting the two pages so that everyone can view the previous edits and sources? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, but that's a PROD, so it really wasn't necessary to stop by and ask me to do it--not like I have any strong feeling about PRODs. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! I didn't want to do it myself because I edited it yesterday. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, would you mind also undeleting James Edwards (radio host) and Talk:James Edwards (radio host)? It's the same issue: they were deleted and have been re-created twice. An issue has arisen regarding who and when, so it would be good if the history could be visible. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done... but I don't see where I'd touched that particular article before at all. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I asked you only because you did the previous one, and the two are connected. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WT:FUCK at MfD

I think the discussion is pretty much done and becoming a rehash. Interested in doing an admin close? There is an issue of "What constitutes consensus?" brewing in there, with one side saying majority = consensus, while the other side says 30 for and 6 against is not by definition consensus, when WP:CONSENSUS defines consensus as a decision where the legitimate concerns of all editors are taken into account. If you decide to close, and you close as "Consensus to keep," please explain why you thought some of the concerns (of the minority) were not legitimate. The Deputy Director of WMF (Eloquence) has commented on this MfD as well, so I think its an interesting case to close. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 19:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh. OK... No matter how I close that, I know about half the participants. If no one else has done that, I'll probably close it tomorrow evening. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

At your convenience... ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I was offline most of yesterday and today. Looks like someone beat me to it. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Its okay. The decision was arrived at in a fair manner, I think. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable fictional elements

Hi Clemens,

After all this time, it would appear that you have convinced me. I apologize if I've caused you any extra work over the past few months. In the future, my preferred way of dealing with articles on non-notable fictional elements will be to suggest merges.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My RfA

I just want you to know that I have realized the correct answer to your question at my RfA. The difference between WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E is that BLP1E applies to all biographies of living people, while BIO1E applies to low-profile individuals. I am telling you this not in the hopes that you change your !vote, but that you can trust me when I get the tools later today. I would not feel right having the tools with at least one user not having faith in me. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. There are even more subtle nuances than that: BLP1E is a BLP policy, and people can be blocked for violating it flagrantly. BIO1E is just a notability issue, and doesn't have the "BLP nuclear" option. At any rate, I rarely have issues with candidates where I'm in a tiny minority oppose. I'm sure you'll do fine. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUSE

I see that you were a member of the House Wikiproject. Would you want to help bring the project back? thanksTalktome^(Intelati) 17:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental reason I haven't been more active with the project is that I'm watching House on Hulu, so I have an 8-day delay before I can work on a House topic without spoiling the next episode. Since they overlap, that pretty much takes me out of the picture while the show is airing... Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing the same thing. :) I just want to round up some troops to manage and direct the happenings of the Wikiproject.--Talktome^(Intelati) 17:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Or help me figure out what to do to manage the Wikiproject? --Talktome^(Intelati) 18:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, be BOLD and see who complains or offers advice. Then consult them. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

possible CfD candidate

Might you look at Category:Koch family to see if it well-formed as a categorization of people? Right now it looks like an ad hoc coatrack mechanism, even categorizing WP users. Categorization of people in a small family is not one of the normal means of categorization in the first place. Is this a CfD candidate, or ought it be speedied? Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When the attack is in how it's used, rather than in the inherent categorization, I'd strongly recommend CfD. I wouldn't speedy it unless it was obvious to anyone unfamiliar with the content that the category was primarily or solely an attack. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Madz67

You blocked this user this past February; I just confirmed a whole bunch of socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Efgsdrthdty, and in the CU I saw a bit of deleted images. What do you think, all of those socks his? –MuZemike 19:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

this was the only interaction I had with him. I have no idea whether those socks are him or not, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Featured List Criteria section 3b

Hello. You are receiving this message as you previously posted in the ongoing RfC on whether Featured List Criteria section 3b should be modified or eliminated. Based on feedback and commentary received during the section-by-section analysis of the current criteria, I have proposed a new version of the criteria here. I would like your input on ways to improve and refine this proposal, in hopes of reaching consensus to implement this change to the criteria. Thank you for your attention. –Grondemar 17:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Commented there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tommy2010

Removing comments responsive to your own oppose [37] presents a conflict of interest. Please revert yourself; if moving the comments to the talk page is absolutely necessary, it should be done by an uninvolved editor. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's among the silliest things I've heard. If you want an answer to your questions, it will not come on the project page, nor is an edit that makes me look like I cluttered up the AfD page with an off-topic response acceptable. Thus, you may feel free to revert your own comments back on to the page, but I specifically disallow movement of my responses from the talk page to the AfD page proper. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Peter; moving the discussion of your own oppose was unwise (especially given that one of the comments you moved was from the candidate), and the discussion was not off-topic. –xeno^talk 13:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Same deal: If you want it put back, put it back WITHOUT any of my subsequent comments, and do not expect me to reply on the project page. Just doing my part to prevent TL;DR threads in the oppose section. Jclemens (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's too late to restore the comments, since Tommy2010 withdrew the RFA before a bureaucrat determined that your actions were improper. Moreover, you should reconsider your practice of opposing RFAs due to a purported lack of "build[ing] an encyclopedia" without sufficient investigation of the candidates' contributions. Tommy2010 actually has made quite substantial contributions of encyclopedic content:

• Jody Williams (chef): (2 edits, 2 major, +2796) (+2796)(+366)

• Florian Bellanger: (6 edits, 6 major, +2308) (+2308)(+428)(+303)(+216)(+256)(+101)

• Candace Nelson: (2 edits, 2 major, +2202) (+2202)(+237)

• Plaza Mayor, Salamanca: (9 edits, 9 major, +2035) (+2035)(+215)(+112)(+220)(+836)(+275)(+117)(+678)(+259)

• Sue Torres: (5 edits, 5 major, +2015) (+2015)(+854)(+122)(+467)(+637)

• Cupcake Wars: (7 edits, 7 major, +1969) (+1969)(+514)(+104)(+118)(+900)(+109)(+121)

• Geoffrey Zakarian: (9 edits, 9 major, +1653) (+1653)(+197)(+236)(+138)(+279)(+231)(+270)(+246)(+482)

• Josh Capon: (2 edits, 2 major, +2913) (+2913)(+456)

• Food: (19 edits, 19 major, +1599) (+540)(+293)(+490)(+1142)(+941)(+364)(+701)(+781)(+1000)(+585)(+498)(+1599)(+137)(+109)(+178)(+161)(+416)(+113)(+510)

• Marcela Valladolid: (6 edits, 6 major, +1395) (+1395)(+281)(+783)(+109)(+271)(+179)

• Marc Murphy (chef): (5 edits, 5 major, +1155) (+1155)(+819)(+116)(+139)(+496)

• Coffee Party USA: (3 edits, 3 major, +372) (+128)(+108)(+372)

The irony of your statement that "The single most important facet of the Administrator corps is that they not drive away the people who write good content"[38] should be readily apparent. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're satisfied with your "help" then, because I was considering un-opposing based on the candidates polite and positive responses, but your combatative attitude made me hesitant to do so, apparently long enough that it's since been closed. Shame, really. Next time... consider whether badgering the first opposer is really the best way to help out a candidate you support. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone removing comments in response to their own opposition to an RFA, in a manner found to be disruptive by one of the users responsible for closing RFAs, could make such a claim: "I continued my opposition just to punish you for disputing the removal of your comments." However, if this is actually true, it calls the legitimacy of your RFA participation into question. (I might as well say that I made subsequent comments in response to your opposition only because I was upset at your removal of my first comment, and that your unwillingness to adhere to conflict of interest principles and generally accepted standards of conduct at RFA needlessly escalated the dispute; the primary difference between the two situations would be that my grievance, being in response to clearly improper conduct, would have greater legitimacy.) While no one contests your right to make ill-considered drive-by opposes, your removal of comments, including one by the candidate himself, was absolutely unacceptable. I'm not going to have an edit war with you at RFA to try to force legitimate comments back on onto a main project page (amicable restoration really wasn't an option, since you refused to permit the restoration of comments besides my own, including one by the candidate.) Instead, if you're not willing to desist from further inappropriate relocation of responses in RFAs, I'm confident that the community will force you to stop. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You are annoying and fail to WP:AGF. Begone from my talk page until such time as you can look back on this discussion and apologize for your behavior. Which, if that's never, won't bother me in the slightest. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hollie Greig

Hollie Greig I have been asked by Hollie Greig's advisors to create an article about her story. It is with her permission and all content I submit will be sourced and factual. However it may attract opinion and comment from certain people who have been trying to discredit her story mainly by inferring that as a Down's Syndrome adult, her evidence lacks credibility or by trying to discredit her mother.

I note that a previous page about her was deleted by you, but as I wasn't aware of its content, I don't know why. The gentleman who was her official PR representative until March, when he was dismissed by her mother, may have been the author. It is his input that her team fear may disrupt a new attempt.

However, I would appreciate your advice as Hollie would like to try to reinstate the information about her.

Talkinghorse (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Catherine Walker

This was the relevant discussion, but the article was one sentence. If Ms. Greig really wants a page on Wikipedia, then that article is unlikely to serve as an appropriate basis. Why does she want this, and what does she hope to see portrayed? Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the latest version that was deleted, though - the phrase "appalling BLP violation" doesn't begin to cover it. I've left a note on the editor's talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! I did look at it, and am working on the assumption that this editor is genuinely unfamiliar with its contents, hence my first question being "Well, what do you think ought to be in such an article?" :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo mass-posting edits signed by another editor

User:Taivo appears to have posted, en masse, a group of posts to other users in the Croatian language arena and signed them by User:Kubura. Edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. This appears to be done to be used against Kubura. I recommend Taivo be blocked for misrepresenting himself and impersonating (poorly) Kubura. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please repost this at ANI. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. You can find here here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've warned Taivo separately at his talk page that an explanation needs to be forthcoming quickly. If it's not, he can explain in an unblock request. I can see no justification for those edits, since there's no edit summary, but I'm going to give him a chance to surprise me. AGF and all... Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Question, should I go through (if you haven't already) and remove the posts by Taivo? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Naah, I'd leave the evidence untouched. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...Taivo did respond. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, which means he probably needs a stern warning rather than a proactive block at this point, but it still falls in the "two wrongs don't make a right" category. The solution to CANVASS violations is not to impersonate an editor. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. I will let you handle the warning, but I do believe that the whole Croatian Language page needs a nice lockdown so people can talk it out on talk or maybe disperse. WAAAY too much tension and heat coming from that page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The two biggest problems in Wikipedia are that 1) experts in a field are given no more weight than any other editor, and 2) partisans in a topic are given as much weight as any other editor. But I don't see any way of fixing either without undermining who Wikipedia is. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your assessment of the situation at Croatian language is quite accurate. --Taivo (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

3O decline

All the other editors participating in the move discussion are not involved in the particular issue at dispute. If you don't want to give your outside opinion, fine, but maybe somebody else will, yes? Please reply here - I'm watching. --05:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the issue is essentially something to be voted up or down, the poll should encompass an answer. When there are competing interpretations of closely related nuances of policy, leaving one to an RfC or poll and a second to a 3O is inappropriate. Personally, I don't particularly like capitalization-based disambiguation, but I lost the last PRIMARYTOPIC debate I had as well. Jclemens (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You're conflating the larger discussion with the particular issue for which 3O dispute resolution was requested. Thanks anyway. --15:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather, you're artificially separating them. Since people are coming to the talk page, make it its own poll, and solicit their opinions. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We've gone back and forth for days. No one else has a shown an interest to jump in. I even started a separate subsection to focus on this particular dispute. I'll seek help elsewhere, it just seemed like 3O was the right place to go since I'm seeking help to resolve a dispute between myself and one other person. My bad, I guess, and thanks again. --15:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. This may be a subtle difference, but 3O is for when no one notices an issue, not so much for when no one cares enough to post in that section. I recommend WP:MEDCAB as a next step. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The cabal seems like overkill. I was just trying to get a quick 3rd opinion on one particular sticking point. Whatever. --16:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Anthony McCormack

I've been led to your page because you have previously deleted the Anthony McCormack page citing lack of evidence of notability. Perhaps additional sources now would be sufficient to reopen the page? http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/tv--radio/sex-talk/2009/06/17/1244918073532.html on his involvement as producer with the Naughty Rude Show, http://syn.org.au/news/2010-06-27/antenna-awards-syns-winners-and-nominees on the Naughty Rude Show winning the 2010 Antenna Award for Best Youth Show. Hattigan (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article. Please feel free to add those sources, and ask for help if you're having difficulty doing so. Jclemens (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User pages

Since that section is being used to justify the deletion of people's sandboxes, I don't think it should sound like it's granting some kind of new speedy deletion criteria outside of our normal ones. As well, it includes things like "mentions" of violence, depending on how you read it. Help me make it say what we mean. Gigs (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If the sandboxes are copyvios or advocate violence, then G12 or G10 apply. If they do not, then what particular speedy deletion criterion is being asserted? The problem in such a case isn't with the wording on that page, it's people inferring an additional speedy criterion where none exists. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

See if my revision makes it any clearer? Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Better. That should solve the concern that prompted my original edit. I still don't like the phrase that could read as "mentions of violence". I'll try an edit to clarify that part. Gigs (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that edit. Let's see if anyone else reverts. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yelena Dembo article

I am writing you, because you blocked me yesterday. First, i am still not wiki-vandal, but yesterday i was really angry at you. Second, i am not registered to english wikipedia, because i am not native english. The matter of issue was the Yelena Dembo article. The story: Yelena Dembo as internationally titled chess player had got free premium membership on Chess.com and free place to promote her books and offer coach lessons. She had put photos of her family's hotel there too. Chess.com isn't some small insignificant amateur chess site, Chess.com is currently absolute #1 with more members than official correspondence chess organisation ICCF. Chess.com offers correspondence-tempo chess games, but chess engines are prohibited in ongoing games, people using them secretly are considered as cheaters and they are getting banned when caught. Cheating is widely considered as the worst offence a player can do. Yelena Dembo actively played, but her play was long time suspicious. I analyzed her games with cheating-analyzer in May and i reported her right away. Her co-incidence with computer was 10% above expected values derived from pre-computer correspondence world championships; +5% is considered as totally safe threshold to avoid false positives. She was banned from Chess.com in September for cheating with chess software. Her closed account was marked with standard phrase about cheating. However Yelena Dembo threatened Chess.com owner with lawsuit. This was considered extremely rude: titled player should lead by example in fair play and at least apologize for cheating when caught. Site owner decided to step back and remove the cheating phrase to avoid being sued. So, what proof of her cheating we do have now: 1) saved picture of her page with standard cheating phrase, 2) database of her games available to all premium members, marked with small cheater's icon, 3) a talk of dpruess (IM David Pruess, Chess.com staff member responsible for cheating detection) in group forum about Dembo's case, available to all members, 4) analysis of Dembo's games from at least four other members, one of them is former game moderator from RedHotPawn (another chess site) trained in detecting cheats and absolutely neutral, because he doesn't play on Chess.com. I know Dembo belongs under BLP, but this is IMO very conclusive proof. Moreover, her fans from Chessgames.com (Bartonlaos) misinformed some wiki-admins trying to downplay this case as unimportant and/or dispute methodology of cheat detection. The methodology used by Chess.com is secret, the top3 method (top4 method is its modification) is considered fair, producing no false positives. Dembo was very positive. The last thing i would like to add: calling me vandal i take as insult. I am 100% sure i am right in this case, so i am going to edit Dembo's page again ASAP. You have the right to demand proof, so i am awaiting your ideas how it should look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.136.148.196 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the proof you assert is that Chess.com is not an independent, reliable source with respect to allegations of cheating--by anyone--at Chess.com. Wikipedia's standards demand a major newspaper, or even Today in Chess or some other genre-specific yet independent and reliable source. None of the items 1-4 you assert meets that standard. 1 and 2 are form a non-independent, non-reliable source, 3 and 4 are original research by others. In no way, shape, or form are any of them individually or all of them together enough to cover an allegation of cheating in Wikipedia. If it's not even a news item, then it's not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist sex abuse cases

Why have you deleted this page? I contributed this page. The log says "15:49, 13 October 2010 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "Buddhist sex abuse cases" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)" but the page is both notable and thoroughly sourced and it is not a BLP (biography of a living person). Why didn't you notify me on my talk page with the appropiate tag? Who are you to act like this? What are my recourses? I ask you to restore the page and to express your reservations in the proper manner. Meanwhile I am investigating how I can seek mediation. The question of reporting you for vandalism also arises it seems to me. Interested parties can see the page in question in my user space here. I ask you not to interfere with this page. Rinpoche (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have requested a review of this page's deletion as per the template below Rinpoche (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• • ==Deletion review for Buddhist sex abuse cases==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Buddhist sex abuse cases. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Replied there. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

César Hildebrandt

Please undelete the article on César Hildebrandt, he's one of the most important Peruvian journalists. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.64.25 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No. It has no sources and asserts negative facts about him. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.64.25 (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You can, of course, create a new one about him which doesn't have that problem. Feel free to do so! Jclemens (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Did you just get an edit conflict on the AfD talk page? You seem to have accidentally deleted my post (now restored). SpinningSpark 20:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I did, but I copied my text back up into the "current text" area, which usually resolves things. Terribly sorry that that didn't work and your post ended up getting clobbered in the process, that certainly wasn't my intention. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a known bug, this - happened to me recently as well. It ended up at ANI once when two editors got into a huge argument because one was claiming the other had deliberately deleted his talkpage posting. There's quite a few references to it in the archives at WP:VPT. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I remembered seeing this before which is why I asked if there was an edit conflict. SpinningSpark 21:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've run into this bug too. Now when I get an edit conflict I copy my new text, refresh the current version, edit, paste, save. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chasm

There seems to be quite the chasm between what BLP actually says and what many people feel it means, at least applied in this case. Anyway, I've restored the content into the main article and have been working on fixing the sourcing. So far no content has needed to be adjusted accordingly. I don't really care whether it's in the main article or in a spinout, just as long as it's readily available. Thanks for excellent explanations. Why they are not persuasive to so many is puzzling and disturbing. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Most people on Wikipedia don't think; they think they know what policies say, and they're usually wrong on one or both of 1) the policies don't say what people think they say, or 2) they don't really understand the need to write a good encyclopedia. Wikipedia's success is also its downfall: there are plenty of people who are here to play a game of one sort or another, instead of actually building an encyclopedia. IAR is the most basic of all rules, and people just don't understand why it must always remain so. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

After I restored the content on the main page, it was removed by User:Tarc ostensibly per WP:UNDUE. I've reverted that removal, explained it on the talk page, and left a warning to not remove well sourced notable content on his user page. FYI. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't just tell me, tell Black Kite or Hobit, too. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Jclemens's Day!

Jclemens has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Jclemens's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Jclemens! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. After I griped at you before about a previous award, it was especially gracious of you to recognize me. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries and You're Welcome! :) Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New biographies of living persons noticeboard design

I've create a new design for the biographies of living persons noticeboard that simplifies the reporting process and makes the instructions clearer. Could you take a look at User:Netalarm/Lab 3 and provide some feedback on how to improve it or take it live? Feel free to submit a report there. Thanks. Netalarm^talk 04:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Str8ts undeletion request

Hi. I'd like to request an undeletion/userfication of the prod'd article Str8ts, please and thank you. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. The "image double stack" template appears to have been deleted, though, so some adjustment appears to be in order. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Blistering speed! Thanks. If there was anything useful there, could we get the talkpage back, too? -- Quiddity (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like it, but it's back anyways. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sunrunners of Goddess Keep et al.

May I ask what your reason is for deprodding this and the 5 related articles? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ATD, they all appear to have valid merge targets. Fictional elements that are not individually notable but belong to a notable franchise should generally be merged into a list of characters, a series article, the book, or something similar. Often, the content should be seriously trimmed in the process, but that's substantially different than outright deletion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was just hoping you know of something I didn't. At this point I'm having trouble finding sources that would establish individual notability for the books in the series, let alone the individual characters/groups. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and I don't !vote to keep things in AfD's when they don't have sourcing... but if they have a presumably correct merge target, then I de-PROD them on the assumption that they can be merged or redirected somewhere. I don't recognize the series, but it's currently bluelinked. I'm actually thinking of writing a guide to "where and when to merge fictional elements" to codify some of the tribal knowledge on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of CSTC HMCS Acadia for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article CSTC HMCS Acadia, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSTC HMCS Acadia until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Anotherclown (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Palle Sørensen

Hi Jclemens, would you consider restoring this page, for the reasons outlined here. The article was previously kept at AfD. I was in the process of sourcing the claims in the article. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. It appears you declined it while I was trying and failing to source it myself. I don't read Danish well at all! :-) Carry on! Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's understandable. Considering the prominence of the incident (at the time), I had expected there to be plenty of sources. But I actually had some difficulty locating usable online sources. Such is the nature of the internet, I guess. decltype (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of magical negro archetypes in fiction into Magical negro

Hi,

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magical negro archetypes in fiction, I am notifying you of the proposed merger. Please comment at Talk:Magical negro#Proposing a merger. Thank you, Bigger digger (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Question on deleted page

Hello, you deleted the Service Academy Gay and Lesbian Alumni as an attack page which was largly uncited. I get the uncited part and have the article with citations now. I don't understand the "attack" page and would like to request your help before reposting. (Eurbani (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

"Attack" page really depends on the perspective of the potential victim, and is very broadly construed. Regardless of the current legal status, unsourced assertions that living persons engaged in then-prohibited conduct (ignoring for now the inherent difference between orientation and conduct) are attacks. Now, servicemembers are perfectly free to out themselves, but that's not Wikipedia's job--thus, we need 100% coverage by BLP-appropriate RS'es for anyone who goes into the article. That make sense? Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins

To be honest, for an RFC I don't think there's enough support or agreement for anything there. Given my stance on inclusionism, if I closed it as "needs a mentor" or similar (which is the best supported recommendation, and that's only got four supports) ... I think you know the rest :) Black Kite (t) (c) 19:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

TPS attack: definitely not an expert or anything, but it seems like a close as no consensus works fine, since the thing is obviously going to WP:AN anyway. (Is a close as "take it to AN" within the pale?) —chaos5023 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, while there's no consensus as to a recommended course of action, the consensus from the summaries that the subject editor's behavior is disruptive is anvil-like and should be noted in a close. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of history there; were I not involved, I would have recommended a rate limit of 1 personal contribution per day to policy discussions, which he could avoid by working collaboratively with any other editor to advance his position in policy discussions--essentially a very soft mandate that he not argue alone against consensus, but carefully construed to make sure that it's not the content of his viewpoints, but his refusal to modify his perspective based on consensus that's the real problem. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

World Net Daily - RSN

I appreciated your recent comment to the RSN. It appeared to be based upon an uninvolved assessment of the both the character and substance of the discussion which I initiated. From the onset, User:Blaxthos commenced to inject wholesale WP:PA into the discussion (and was joined in that WP:PA abuse of the talk environment by User:Dlabtot). I refrained from responding to this PA baiting in the vain hope that an observing administrator might intervene without my having to resort to ANI. Simply didn't happen...and ANI for redress appears to be my only option at this point.

Be that as it may, User:Blaxthos has gone so far as to "hat" the RSN discussion which now suppresses even further any attempt at good faith dialogue on the subject. I don't know under what authority he presumes to do that and I would appreciate your consideration as to...

A. My rights to "unhat" a legitimate RSN to which numerous editors have already contributed.

B. User:BlackKite's ability to render an unbiased assessment as to the relevant issues raised based upon what appears to be his prejudiced perspective against me.

If you feel my request for assesments are inappropriate for your independent administrator review, please consider contributing, at least, a summation of the RSN reflecting its content or, perhaps, recommending an unbiased administrator who might be relied upon to do so? If I must go elsewhere for this, please advise.

Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

One afterthought if I might. In a response to User:Jiujitsuguy who was supporting my argument, User:Blaxthos has misrepresented my position to a degree that makes it unrecognizable to me. Surely I should have the opportunity to respond? Thanks.JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the best thing to do is walk away. Really, an objective look at WND demonstrates that they have about four kinds of content: 1) Great original reporting that no one else will touch--grounbreaking stuff that Drudge picks up from them, for the most part 2) Conservative opinion pieces 3) Fringe conspiracy theories that never pan out, and 4) things repackaged to stir up pageviews that consist of one new out-of-context tidbit, combined with a rehash of their previous coverage of the topic. What the consensus is at the moment--and make no mistake: you won't change it--is that 1 is OK, except we're not going to cite WND itself, just other sources who pick the stories up once they're substantiated, and 2 is fine for opinion pieces. That's the way things are, and while there may be a certain amount of left bias from some of those who hate on WND, it's not a great injustice in the grand scheme of things. Getting the last word in won't do anything except annoy the people who don't agree with you: you have nothing to gain by doing so, and might get blocked if you're too obnoxious about it. Hence, my advice to just walk away, despite the fact that no, no one ever did cite anything that WND did wrong. Wikipedia is a shared hallucination, and one must get used to the fact that logic alone will never prevail, or the difference between what Wikipedia is and could be will drive you nuts. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And you've hit on the reason why general consensus appears to be that WND isn't a reliable source; because a source that mixes (1) with (3) and (4) is always going to be a nightmare in terms of reliability; not to mention that the (3) and (4) stuff is often seriously BLP-problematic. I blocked JnJ during the last episode purely because he was disruptive on the page after being warned about it; nothing to do with the actual dispute itself. But bringing it back up again is merely going to waste everyone's time. As I said on the closure - if you can only source something to WND, there's a fairly good chance there's going to be a problem with it. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hence, my advice to just walk away, despite the fact that no, no one ever did cite anything that WND did wrong.

That observation alone is worth the price of admission...and I thank you for that. An assertion that WND has consistently demonstrated a failure to apply journalistic standards for "fact checking and accuracy" is pure tripe, unsupported via citation and repudiated by Wikipedia's OWN standard for WP:V. That such a demonstrably fraudulent "consensus" can be upheld by this community is a shameful demonstration of what ails this project.

But if I might digress to the more mundane, User:Blaxthos' "hatting" of the discussion and the composition of an unbiased RSN summation? Must I petition elsewhere for that? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who looks into it in any detail will see who did what, and who refrained from contesting things that were handled in such a manner. Fact is, most people won't care, and making a stink about it won't make them care, either. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

One, I gave no summation of the RSN in the hat (not even the one given by the closing admin) -- I simply marked it as resolved and hatted it to quell further beating of the horse. Two, the {{resolved}} template was only used after being placed by an administrator and seconded/thirded by other admins. Three, Jake has shown a longstanding obsession with this issue and an unwillingness to accept a consensus with which he does not agree. This is clearly resolved, despite one or two editors who may disagree -- WP:CONSENSUS does not demand unanimous acceptance. It appears JnJ still won't let this one go... if his antics continue, I will push for some sort of topic ban or more formal injunctions based on WP:POINT. It is my most sincere hope that this will be the end of it, and we can all move on. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And exactly how, Blaxthos, do you think that posting this here remotely helped? If you want to rush to seek sanctions on someone else for not dropping a dispute, you would do well to butt out when an uninvolved yet sympathetic administrator is explaining to that editor why pursuing a dispute is unproductive. Seriously, keep your own hands clean and if he has a serious problem, no one will be able to construe any of your conduct as baiting. Jclemens (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Incubator

Can you add a source link or two to this post. It's hard to assess knowing only "some editor" asked for it, no idea if this happens very often, what "kept for work" means (what work?), how long the keep was for, and any discussion or other disclosure that was considered. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for. If there's a specific issue with a specific article, is it not possible to see who put it into the incubator and ask them? Jclemens (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

J, I think it was you (but forgive me if I'm wrong) that once said you have good database access to sources. I am looking to find this article [39], among others, for my work on this, an article I am pretty excited about. If you can help, that's great, if not, that's fine too. Thanks.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, spent a few minutes going through different things, including Lexis/Nexis academic and EBSCOHost, with no joy. No one appears to have the LA Times that far back. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Darn! Thanks for looking.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting deleting article be reinstated.

I have only discovered now that the Page for Billy Milionis was deleted, Mr Milionis is a notable person in the Sydney community, please read the article on page 13 http://www.southsydneyherald.com.au/pdf/SSH_AUG10.pdf... ( South Sydney Herald ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.3.42 (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Restored, and sent for a deletion discussion. As of now, the article doesn't have sourcing suitable for inclusion, and since he's a living person, we want that cleaned up directly. Please make appropriate improvements to the article, and feel free to ask for help if you're unsure how to do so. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

JC, can you please restore the talk page too. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not much there, but it's back. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's mainly the proj tags that I wanted, but not being an admin, I didn't know what else was there! Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Attaché Show Choir

In response to The Deletion of Attaché Show Choir Page.

The Attaché Show Choir page was deleted with the concern that there is 'no sourced notability' existed for this show choir.This show choir is nationally ranked and deserves to have a wikipedia. Here are some proof of its importance in the world of show choir.

Attaché was the host for the Show Choir Nationals in Nashville, Tennessee in 2010.

Here is the home page for the group:

They are mentioned in the Congressional Record-Senate that states that they have won many national competitions in several states such as Indiana, Illinois, California, New York, Florida, and Alabama. It also mentions that they are the only show choir group to win Grand Championship in each of the Showstoppers International Invitation Competitions.

I believe the sources I have provided, especially the last one, are enough proof of the importance of Clinton Attaché Show Choir.

Sincerely, Fireflylover (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Restored, but you didn't need to tell me all that--you need to go integrate it into the article as restored. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please undelete Talk:Chris Molitor too

Now that the DRV is complete and overturned the AfD, can you please undelete Talk:Chris Molitor. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect PROD?

I put up a proposed deletion that said, "No significant secondary sources to show notability." You removed it, saying, "Decline PROD, rationale is incorrect: it has a source. Feel free to AfD". But the sole source does not indicate that the subject is notable. Do you think that source established notability? [40]   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I may have been reading too much into the rationale--one source doesn't make something notable, nor was that source necessarily sufficient. What I do tend to do is de-prod PRODs with what I perceive to be inaccurate statements that clearly overstate the cause for deletion. In that case, there's a WaPo source, yet the rationale leads off with "No significant secondary sources...". I didn't actually look at who had placed the tag. Had I done so, I would have been more likely to have AGFed since it was you than if it was any random editor. If the rationale had been worded "Single source to Washington Post is trivial mention, doesn't establish notability", I almost certainly would have deleted it. Unfortunately, your terse nom got caught up in my "people possibly lying about stuff to get it deleted" filter, and declined. At this point (and even without this), I have no objection to it being AfD'ed, nor would I opine that it should be kept at an AfD. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. I'll be more careful about how I word PROD notices in the future.   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of medical eponyms with Nazi associations‎‎

-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

LM-X License Manager page deleted

Hi Jclemens,

I wanted to ask if it would be possible to get the source code/content of the LM-X License Manager page I created, and which was deleted. I spent some time putting the page together, and it would be a complete waste to have to do it all over again (once I find better references/sources). I hope you understand and can help me on this. Thank you. Nowy9 (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've restored it and moved it to User:Nowy9/LM-X License Manager. Best wishes on improving it! Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)