User talk:Jclemens

Welcome!

Hello, Jclemens, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Acro-yoga

Thank you so much for reverting back to my article from the total blank out... for some reason, this article is being actively argued for deletion... if you could weigh in and support its keeping, i would appreciate greatly. Peace, --Comixboy (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, Jclemens. Asking someone to participating in a !voting page, especially asking for a speficic !vote is called WP:CANVASS which is frowned upon.--RyRy5 (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm really not one to be able to speak to the appropriateness of the article. If the article meets WP:N and WP:RS the process should result in its being kept. The best thing for you to do would be to add reliable references to notable media regarding it, rather than simply seeking other editors' support. If you need help with how to format those references, that I'd be happy to help with. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem

It's a nice little section. I'm sure there's also an interview where Anthony Head talks about s8. I'll scower Whedonesque for it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton Southeastern

Thanks for reverting the vandalism    Juthani1   ^tcs 02:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm all for the "sighted revisions" proposal, though, which would hopefully put me mostly out of the business rv'ing vandalism! Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

You do realize that an IP vandalized your user page 3 times, right? I already reported the IP at WP:AIV. --RyRy5 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't. Oh, and make that 4, plus one to the editor review request and once to this talk page. Kinda funny. I'm as happy to revert vandalism here as anywhere else on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear, Jclemens. Keep up the good work. --RyRy5 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF

Why didyou revert the NYU page? They recently adopted the Banana Slug mascot and I noticed the page wasn't updated.. You can look at their press release here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.233.20 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Suuuuure. Just like the other three schools you changed without any reliable sources, huh? Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cuneiform tablet - Kirkor Minassian collection - Library of Congress.jpg

There was no image - it was deleted or something, and I removed the category because this non-image was showing up in the category. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation--that wasn't initially clear from Huggle. Perhaps proposing it for deletion might have been less likely to confuse recent change patrollers? At any rate, I whitelisted you shortly afterwards. Happy Cuneiform maintaining! Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Serenity comics overarticle

Alright, its up. I'll try to hunt down what redirects I can, but it would be best if you went through as well, seeing as your edit history will have them all listed. -- saberwyn 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You got the three I added. Thanks for doing the work, it looks much better. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Serenity film edits

I have some problems with your edit here. To begin with, at no point in Staite's blog (I thought we tend to avoid those) does she refer to Serenity as the Big Damn Movie. Her reference to BDM is without explanation and seems almost a non-connection of synthesis (ie, knowing that fans call it the BDM and connecting that info with Staite's ambiguous usage of the term) doesn't seem like a clear one. The second source, from Session416.com, seems to be a fan site (I am almost positive that we don't use those at all for citable information). The third source you cited (from Weeklystandard.com) doesn't even mention the words BDM or Big Damn Movie. At all. So, here we have three sources, two of which are the poorest of allowable sources and the third doesn't even note the material supposedly being cited. It cannot remain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can remain. That's just a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, however. To address the points in question...

1. I didn't add or modify the Weekly Standard reference, I just restored what was there before without looking at it.
2. Staite's Blog is authoritative for what Staite says, per WP:SPS. Granted that she doesn't explain what BDM means. Reading it in context of the other blog posts, however, makes it clear that that's what she's referring to.
3. The Session416 site is a reaction to and later explanation of the "viral marketing" campaign for Serenity. I'm guessing it was authored by one or more fans, but like The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 is a respected, documented, essentially static resource within the limited context of its expertise.

Other possible sources that support that usage are a number of acronym lists, a reader reply to a newspaper-sponsored blog (in sfgate.com), a bunch of posts to whedonesque.com, and thousands of other blogs that Google can find. There's no question that that usage is verifiable, really. The question rather is what and how many sources are sufficient to document it, without filling the reference list with tangentially relevant stuff.

Personally, I think the simple solution is to follow the spirit of WP:SPS--fan sites should be RS for what fans say--and the use of BDM as shorthand is well documented in those contexts. Your thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for responding so quickly. :)

I wasn't kicking you for adding links, only for the edit that added them in the first place. Apparently, we are agreed that the Weekly Standard reference is out, as it doesn't point to the usage implied by the statement. I still have reservations about the Staite reference, as using it implies a bit of synthesis that could easily become a slippery slope; I would feel much better with a reference from Whedon or someone putting BDM, Big Damn Movie and the allusion in one place. the article would certainly be stronger for it. Lastly, fansites as SPS are fairly poor examples for use. True the site is indeed purty, but its essentially unqualified non-RS info being imparted as official. The B5 Lurker's Guide is different in that is backs up everything it says with confirmation from Straczynski or someone else associated with the program. Staite is the talent, not the production, and her comments are rather outside of her purview. Again, finding something more slid only strengthens the article. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking through my copies of The Serenity Visual Companion and Finding Serenity, but I didn't find a reference to BDM in any of those. I don't have the second volume of essays, but the first was published before the movie was released--the latter would be much more likely to have it. Also, there's no question that the fan film, Done the Impossible will have references in it, but it, too, has the Fan film stigma, even if it is released for general sale. It really shouldn't be this much work to document the widespread fan usage--it seems the sourcing threshold should be lower for uncontested facts.

I understand the need to put BDM, Big Damn Movie, and Serenity in one place. I disagree that it needs to be Whedon saying it--the original assertion was that the fans used it regularly to refer to the movie--thus it's more of a reaction to the movie than authorial intent. What about using fan links like FireFlyFans, Whedonesque or UK Browncoats Forum in the specific context of documenting what fans call Serenity?

Also, I have no problem with moving the 'BDM' reference out of the lead section. I just put it back there because that's where it was. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't mean to imply that Whedon was the only dude we could cite, J. I was thinking that someone on the production (or even marketing side) of the series/film would be better to cite than the talent. As for noting it because the fans started to could be cited, if we can find a news source (or something similar) that notes the phenomena of BDM might be a way out of the problem. I think something similar was done with both the Star Trek and Star Wars stuff, both of whom have sizable fan followings and idiosyncrasies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks! --213.40.96.218 (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah --AbsoluteIdiot2 (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)