Jump to content

User talk:Jclemens/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Closing an incomplete MFD?

Could you close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hm2k/MIRCStats? This was an incomplete MFD which was part of a larger pattern of disruption just prior to this AN/I discussion which in turn led to this ArbCom motion. I considered adding the close templates myself but I think given my prior history with the editor who attempted that MFD, someone else should probably do it. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, closed. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Loopner

The article you offered comment on no longer exists. Uncle G did a complete rewrite, added some quite decent sources, and moved the article to its new name... "The Nerds". Perhaps you might wish to revisit the AFD? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Since I was the last "holdout", I went ahead and closed it. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

An apology regarding the Tommy2010 RFA situation

It appears that one of the articles Tommy2010 had "written" was actually a fairly blatant copyright violation [1]; this is likely the case for his other "contributions" as well. I commend you and other editors opposing his request for adminship for having the insight to recognize the problems with the candidate, even though their exact nature wasn't fully known at the time. I apologize for excessive disputation with oppose !votes, violating WP:AGF, and neglecting to adequately investigate the user before supporting. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but not really necessary. I tend to be a professional nay-sayer at RfA, so I've long since learned neither to take things personally nor to blame other people (especially nominators) when they do. We live, we learn. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy! Kids Week

You previously participated in an AFD discussion regarding a child article of Jeopardy!. There is currently another ongoing AFD for Jeopardy! Kids Week and you may be interested in providing a comment or vote for/against deletion. If you'd like to participate you can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

POVforks

Appear to be a serious problem. I mention one at AN/I. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh? Redirect 'em. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Far beyond that state - more than 80% of an article has been "moved" to the forks. With a claim that the moves are by "agreement" which does not exist. TFD warned me not to do edits - though he and Petri excahnged plans/advice on how to get an article deleted through this means. Collect (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like it might be a violation of WP:GAME. You have diffs, I presume? Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
[2] is my edit quoting the coordination of editors. (basically saying precisely how they intended to delete Communist terrorism as an article after the RfC to change the title was clearly rejected.
[3] shows TFD's creation of the Left wing terrorism article.
[4] shows Siebert's massive deletion from the parent article. [5] shows Igny reverting my edit.
[6] shows Igny moving a large section (without preserving edit history). [7] shows Siebert moving almost all the rest with the claim "per talk." [8] I reverted the move to the POVfork. [9] then redeleted the content calling it delete POV fork content per talk (making the apparent assertion that the original article is the "fork"! [10] Snowded then assert that the deletion was revert to talk page agreement) which does not exist.
[11] TFD asserts that the article Communist terrorism falls under Digwuren and warns me that I will be sanctioned for edit war if I dispute the POVfork. Sigh. The fact is that Petri and TFD knew they were creating a POVfork, established the means for deleting the original article, and are carrying it out contrary, IMHO, to WP policies. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
So next time you make an ANI post, please include diffs of specific "bad actions" in your initial complaint--that is, if you want people to take your complaints seriously. You've got to answer the reader questions "What's wrong here?" and "Why should I care?" substantively if you want action to be taken. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Polemic

Is it not also polemic not to MFD the other one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demiurge1000/Second_enquiry_into_the_Rlevse_affair - Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what? I haven't looked at that one yet. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've now looked at it. If anything it should be tagged as humor. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps as Skomorokh says its better withdrawn, all in all, the whole affair is not very amusing. The wiki sometimes seems to self implode. Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A woman gets on a bus with her baby. The bus driver says: "That's the ugliest baby that I've ever seen. Ugh!" The woman goes to the rear of the bus and sits down, fuming. She says to a man next to her: "The driver just insulted me!" The man says: "You go right up there and tell him to f*** off – go ahead, I'll hold your monkey for you." - Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's always a good one. I'd planned to stay away from the MfD for a while, rather than babysitting it. If the community says that the "enquiry" is a violation of UP#Polemic, I can live with that, and if they disagree with my nom, I'm OK with that too. I'm a part of what I perceive to be the silent majority who are saddened and disgusted by the whole affair. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I wish the silent majority would speak up sometimes, best wishes to you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion re: handling of possible socking

Would you be willing to review my approach to issues toward the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limuel B. Forgey III? There's a large WP:DUCK in the room, but I don't feel like coming down on the guy like a ton of bricks is the best thing to do; if he socked, I think he did so as nearly to innocently as is possible, and his intentions are far from nefarious. Mostly I'd like to know if there are any major points where my approach is questionable. I'm wrestling with the idea of opening a sock investigation but pleading for the sockmaster to be warned rather than blocked if positive results obtain, so if you have any thoughts about that, I'd like to hear them. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look a bit more later, but there's no chance that such obvious newbiness is going to affect the AfD outcome. So yeah, take as much time as you want to be nice, and don't worry that being overly friendly will undermine cleaning up an article that doesn't belong in mainspace. I'd go ahead and offer to userify it if it's deleted from mainspace, so it softens the blow a bit--"removed from mainspace for now" doesn't seem as final as "deleted". Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm mostly concerned about the possible socking issue rather than the overall AfD; I'm sure that will sort itself out. Userification seems like a good step for this guy's peace of mind should things keep going they way they have, though, so thanks for that. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
In my mind, there are two types of sock'ers. 1) those who do it because they're too new to figure out how to really get things done around here. I'm guessing this is where our fellow is. The other type, of course 2) knows exactly what they are doing and is using socking as a lever to obtain what they know they're not entitled to. I'm much, much less concerned with 1 than 2--and you're right, many DUCK socks are in the first category. So, outside this AfD, what is the lasting impact of this user's misbehavior? Is he putting anything else in jeopardy? Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
He definitely seems like category 1 to me, and I'm not aware of any damage done at all; there's no danger of it even affecting the outcome of the AfD, I don't think. Assuming the quacking object is a duck, I strongly suspect he already won't try it again. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Brandun DeShay request to remove from possible deletion please

I decline the deletion of Brandun DeShay. Yleonmgnt. References are reputable and have wiki articles of their own. Notability is proven with two significant entertainers with wiki articles. I reviewed adjusted the article thanks to the the pointers givin by the one who added it to the deletion discussion in compliance to WP:RS and WP:ENT up to wiki standards. I see the dispute with the reliable sources but the blogs that were mentioned are all reputable and have wiki's themselves except for one: the segalaxy.blogspot.com blog (which i removed). Aside from that one reference, it passes A7. It is in compliance of WP:ENT with significant work from Tanya Morgan and Curren$y. Once again, by collaborating musically with two entertainers with wiki articles themselves the artist just clears A9.--99.180.194.53 (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to make this argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandun DeShay. I'm just one of the administrators who categorized the deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

re User:Msm041/Tetrafusion

No problems, just the fact that absolutely no work or effort was put into the userspace draft. Did the user whose subpage it is placed under, request it be put there? Was the user notified via their user talk page, as to the subpage's existence? Does the user intend to improve it? Will the subpage draft just sit there, indefinitely, as a Web Hosting Service? -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, buried in the DRV text was a request that it be incubated. I'm watching the userified copy--if he tries moving it back into mainspace without a good-faith improvement, I'll be on top of him. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Did you let him know via a notice to his user talk page? -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I have now. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Observation

Man, AfD is hard. I see why people get all "RAAAR IT'S CRAP EVERYTHING IS CRAP DELETE IT ALL RAAAR". —chaos5023 (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Yep. Gotta keep your perspective if you actually want to build an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Queen (JAG) (2nd nomination)

So how about ADDING the sources? That way we don't keep dancing in circles: article gets nominated, someone says there are sources but never adds them, article gets renominated, someone says there are sources but never adds them, etc. etc. I've noticed this infinite loop far too many times, so let's get cracking, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree. As the nominator, it's incumbent upon you to follow WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion, don't you agree? I can show you how to search and add sources if you need any help, of course. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, on further inspection, the Gnews link shows only TV.com (which is entirely user submitted) and a false positive. Tell me how any of that is reliable third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

PJIRC

Could you please userfy PJIRC and Talk:PJIRC? Thanks. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Now at User:Tothwolf/PJIRC, etc. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Some questions though... This was deleted via prod after a previous AfD was withdrawn. Doesn't an AfD preclude the use of prod? Right now the version of the article in my userspace contains one published book as a reference (which was there at the time of prod and deletion), which contains about 3 solid pages dedicated to the client. A quick Google Books search turned up another book with a paragraph about the client, and I suspect there are probably a few more books which give some coverage to the client that that Google Books just doesn't index. Given the obvious coverage with two books from a simple Google Books search, it seems notability isn't a question, so would this be considered a disruptive prod, particularly considering the individuals involved in the prod and follow up "endorsement"? --Tothwolf (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Given the age, I'd just feel free to put it back into mainspace with the improved refs and let it be. Avoid poking beehives with sharp sticks, I always say. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'll just add the diffs to the detailed notes I've been keeping in case the individuals involved return to this behaviour later. If this were an isolated incident I wouldn't be concerned about it but as previously documented, this is just typical of the behavioural patterns. I'm really not even sure where to begin with cleaning this mess up as there are literally dozens upon dozens of articles involved. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Just let me know what got PROD'ed that you want restored, and I'll get 'em back as soon as I'm reasonably able. Easy go, easy come back. If you are going to keep score, do it offline, too. Jclemens (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Will do on the prods. Unfortunately, not all of these were prods, though. There were a quite a number of "questionable" AfDs, not only stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konversation (resolved) but others such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abjects (unresolved, and where I personally wrote a large part of the article, including the section that "someone" claimed was already in Hal Turner (it isn't), hence why it was AfD'd and meatpuppeted). As for the rest, Document, Document, Document, and I've been doing just that for the last ~18 months. After awhile the patterns tend to become very obvious. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that Abjects isn't even a "website", see the comments made in that AfD... Hal Turner would very, very much love for that incident to go away. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Weird Stories for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Weird Stories, 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/The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Weird Stories 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) 23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your commitment to the helpful task of Deletion sorting, I commend you. :) œ™ 17:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but I really wish Gene93k was back doing it. :-) He was the one who showed how effective essentially universal deletion sorting would be for efficiencies in commenting in AfDs. He's the one to whom original credit is due: had he not rocked it so well for so long, I would not have been chagrined enough by his absence to pick it up. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well kudos to him too indeed! I can see the value in deletion sorting and I'm just glad someone's out there doing it consistently :) -- œ™ 18:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Security

Speaking as a fellow computer security practitioner, since the inception of Firesheep a few weeks ago the ability to access another editors account on an unsecured wi-fi has become a rather trivial matter possible. Anyone wanting to secure there account over unsecure wi-fi should login with secure server and have there entire session in https. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Note also Dcoetzee advice to admins and other privileged users. I think I may add something to this effect at ANI as it's relevant to admins. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, it's possible, but attributing a specific edit to another person requires far more than possibility to move it into the realm of plausibility. You'd need someone else within range (trivial) to have wireless (easy), hacker inclinations (plausible), Firesheep (as plausible as hacker inclinations), to be hacking at the specific time he was active (unlikely), on his specific stream (unlikely), and to make that specific edit to Wikipedia (VERY unlikely). Multiply all those odds together, and you get a far less chance of occurrence than just the theoretical odds of Firesheep being able to hack into a Wikipedia session. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Right, I agree with much of that. In your edit you put it in general terms 'the assertion that an edit might have been inserted' perhaps you intended to mean a specific edit. i.e. User:Rodhullandemu's edit(s) in which case I agree with you. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

DRV close of Veronica Moser

This comment was added to your close, I've moving it here since it seems the most appropriate venue in the first place to address whatever needs addressing. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


You stated that "the user is free to start a new biography of Ms. Moser that complies with current BLP guidelines" but did not state which user nor did you link to the BLP guidelines, nor did you state which guidelines were violated.

Instead, it would be better to state exactly which guidelines are violated and to do so on the "talk" page, after it is restored. That way there is a clear record of why that entry was deleted. The proliferation of information about other individuals shouldn't generally be hindered. Obviously enough of this and it will be difficult to find information on various individuals (did I mention that I was looking for information on Veronica Moser?)

How is "sufficiently egregious" is any less subjective (or any more of justifying reason) than "derogatory"?

What was on that original Wikipedia page that you feel the need to be so secretive about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.225.206 (talk • contribs)

Secretive? Nothing's particularly secretive, it's just outright too offensive to be restored without an impeccable source: "She is one of the most popular such actresses in the world, renowned for her enthusiasm and deft consumption of feces. Initially reluctant to perform coprophilial sex, she trained herself to enjoy it by eating her own feces daily." That, if untrue, would cause harm to a real person for it to be printed in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD complaint at AE

I have earlier noted to you certain material conserning Petri and TFD, IIRC. You might wish to examine [[12] wherein your opinions of any sort might be of value. Collect (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden

I'm probably considered involved, but I'm on the edge of blocking him for edit summaries like this one. I've discussed it with him several times, but he doesn't seem to recognize that using deceptive edit summaries is completely inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 19:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I have no idea what he's thinking. Really, I don't. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • But I have a bone to pick with Hrafn's behaviour in this case. Apart from his usual difficult stance regarding the topic in question, he also rushed straight off to vote against my position in a couple of AFDs. For example, see here where he votes to delete a respectable article about aircraft design. These edits seem in violation of WP:POINT, being quite unrelated to the original topic, and so seeming to be in the nature of retaliation.
    • I think the above quotation gives ample reason why an editor might take a close, and skeptical, look at your activity on AfDs (and I only commented upon two, out of the myriad). I would also note that your own activities related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design process‎ has been the subject of considerable disapprobation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I encourage editors to take a good look at that AFD and the related work upon the article, aircraft design to see whether the sources supplied are bogus as Hrafn suggests above. They will note that Hrafn has now revised his delete !vote. His change of mind is commendable and it is encouraging that there is some convergence of views between us in this and the other topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Hrafn would request that Colonel Warden cease and desist putting words in his mouth. Hrafn did not suggest that the sources supplied for aircraft design "are bogus" (though he would suggest that the sources he saw were rather tangential). The "bogus sourcing" was a quote from a recent ANI thread about Colonel Warden's activities generally. Hrafn would also point out that he changed his !vote to 'moot' as nothing of the original article remained (neither name nor content) -- talk about "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it" -- and that any claim that this represents "convergence" is a gross misrepresentation HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "You're an officious little ignoramus, aren't you?"
  • "What the fuck are you talking about? Go read for a week and come back."
  • "i appreciate you don't understand these distinctions of meaning"
  • "Why are you struggling so to understand what you're reading?"
  • "Well, let me show you how..."

After this tirade, I was beginning to think that interacting with Hrafn wasn't so bad after all. :) But how is it that the eager monitors of my movements did not notice Bali's incivility? My impression is that the complaints about my behaviour are quite selective and one-sided. What do you think?

Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say those are more WP:CIV violations than OWN, and yes that is typical for Bali ultimate - not only usually overlooked by those who share his wikiphilosophy, but often defended by same. Colonel, I agree that complaints often fall along the usual lines when prominent inclusionists and deletionists find an excuse to mix it up with each other. However, I also understand that Jclemens is concerned with your behavior in this situation as well (I haven't examined all the details), so I think it would be wise to take his cautions into consideration. It doesn't do anyone any good for you to be blocked, except for your opponents, the same folks who undoubtedly danced for joy when A Nobody was banned. So if there's something you can do to take the heat off of yourself, and work more productively to improve articles of unclear notability, then that's the best thing you can be doing right now. I, for one, would rather have you around than not. Godspeed, man. BOZ (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
going back to the top line of this section, with respect to the edit summary, I myself would have said "rvt redir. for which there was no consensus," just as I did for several similar edits today. But looking at the edit history [13], nothing is concealed and so the error is harmless: the page size changes says it all.
and I might as well say here that I consider Kww and myself both barred as interested parties from any blocks involving merging/redirected fiction articles--or even threatening such. In this field, I work only as an editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akela_(Jungle_Book)&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

My responses

Colonel Warden, I expected that the tag removal was inadvertent, and I believe you when you say that. Keep in mind, however, that you have recently been "taken to the woodshed" at ANI for admittedly intentional tag removal. You must take care to conduct yourself in a manner above reproach. Please do not do otherwise. When in doubt about an action that others might think inappropriate, (first off, think expansively) run it by me, DGG, or another editor you trust to be a sounding board.
Yes, Bali Ultimate is quite often incivil. He's far from the only one. I suggest you deal with it in the same manner I have: essentially ignore it and grow a thicker skin.
Yes, Hrafn likes more sourcing than many other editors believe to be reasonable. Unlike Bali Ultimate, what Hrafn prefers isn't even against the unenforced letter of the law. Again, I advise you to learn the same lesson I learned in dealing with Hrafn on Unification Church-related topics over two years ago: if you can source things to Hrafn's satisfaction, you've got ironclad and unassailable sourcing.
Ultimately, there is exactly one person on Wikipedia you can control: yourself. My advice is to be impeccable with your sourcing, careful with your edits and their summaries, and selectively deaf when insulted.
Oh, and sorry for not responding earlier. Was off with my wife at a Trans-Siberian Orchestra concert tonight. Jclemens (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Please see [14]. If A deletionist had done this they would have been blocked in a nanosecond. Please do something about this. Spartaz Humbug! 22:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Check ANI. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • A very effective application of the extreme and inappropriate proposal to discredit the idea of more moderate sanctions. Well done at enabling the next round in the drama. At this point the Col has accepted what they did was unhelpful and agreed not to do it again so the whole thing is moot but the pattern of deterioration in his behaviour is continuing. Sensible people who he trusts need to speak to him about breaking the pattern before he goes too far and gets banned. We have all seen it before but the blame isn't with me or other editors, it has to fall squarely on the Col and those who nod and wink at his disruption and enable further deterioration by telling him that his bad behaviour is OK. He clearly needs to either take a break or refocus his perspective. Spartaz Humbug! 08:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • What "more moderate sanctions" would actually be 1) useful and 2) preventative, rather than punitive? I'm not denying the possibility that they might exist--I'm just calling it like I see it. Got a better proposal? Feel free to either make it yourself or tell me what you would have done different. I'm all ears. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • A 3 month ban from his main area of activity for crossing over a line? He needs pulling up against the line he crossed not being locked away from it for a long period. A short block would have done just as well to make him think about the behavioural boundaries he crossed but runs the risk of his taking umbridge and not listening to the lesson. As an alternative, a day or two away from AFD would have been enough and not involved sullying his block log. My issue, now I have slept on it and thought long and hard, is all the people defending his behaviour and thereby enabling the next event when the col would have been better served by being reminded of the line by his friends and warned off doing it again. Blocking, trout slapping, short ban from Afd? It doesn't really matter what it was as long as the "stop" was clear and equivocal. But 3 months for a stupid page move? No-one uninvolved could really be expected to support that and your proposal simply led to the usual suspects lining up along party lines. I fear the next step will have to RFC/U. Shame. Spartaz Humbug! 17:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
            • You'll notice other people were saying the proposed topic ban was too short. Can't please everyone... Blocking is technically easy to do, but simply not called for by the facts of the case: his disruption is in a specific area only, and whether due to cluelessness or intentional gamesmanship, there are plenty of examples of him just not getting the fact that he needs to be careful. There's certainly a torches-and-pitchforks crowd involved. I really wish it was acceptable to impose a periodic topic ban as an uninvolved administrator, but the consensus is that blocks are preventative and individually imposable, but bans of whatever nature require a community discussion and consensus. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
              • I must say, people really didn't want this complaint to stay open. I was planning on introducing a series of restrictions that still would let Colonel Warden participate in AfDs. Nothing extreme, but I thought he should be restricted from non-admin closures, moving any articles while they are at AfD, and a restriction against removing tags from articles. Still, it's troubling that a list of such restrictions would even be necessary. AniMate 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
                • So, AniMate, that's a good thought, but has its own problem. If we simply restrict Warden from doing what he's done in the past, what happens the next time he makes a mistake (alternatively, "finds another way to game the system")? Back to square one, at best! No, if it's time for sanctions, it's probably time from an enforced break from the area entirely, I fear. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • I'm not opposed to an enforced break, but I'm a realist. There are too many active members of the ARS who would automatically oppose any type of topic ban for consensus to be reached. I think placing restrictions on the problematic behavior would be a great first step, and the next time he tries to game the system (alternatively, "makes a mistake") he is blocked. Simple. AniMate 19:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem, though, is that I'm simply not seeing how the community can hold that Warden is both competent and acting in good faith. He should know better, and a plethora of small errors, made over time and despite protests, is not consistent with an editor who is appropriately responding to constructive feedback. In short, my patience is strained, and I expected, apparently incorrectly, that others' would be as well. The supporters of the topic ban proposal didn't surprise me at all. The opposers, on the other hand, included some I expected and some that I would have expected to abstain. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you opposed the topic ban. If your patience is strained, you could actually support sanctions instead of arguing against every single suggestion that has been made. You shot down your own topic ban proposal. You opposed any block. You're opposed to the restrictions I've suggested. What exactly do you think the appropriate action should be the next time he steps out of line? Judging from what I've seen, I expect you'll award him a barnstar. AniMate 20:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I did, because I think it's the right answer, but premature. As I've observed elsewhere, it's not entirely appropriate to use a week-old edit that came before the most recent warning as a "straw" that kicks over from warning to sanction. Having said that, I do think the serious proposal to take away what Warden loves/abuses is going to be the thing that gets him to wake up and stop screwing around (where that term is intentionally ambiguous about misuse vs. carelessness) if anything ever will. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Referencing opinion

Hey, can you take a look at List of fighter aircraft? I have just finished converting that article into a sortable table. What's your opinion on citations for an article like this? Since it is mostly a navigational aid type of list, and all of the information has been pulled off of the individual articles for each aircraft, is it generally required to have at least one reference for each entry? Or is it ok to have no references since the individual articles are referenced? Or is it somewhere in the middle? Where do you think a WP:FL reviewer would fall on this issue? The article still has some issues (particularly the absence of a lead), but me and a few other editors put in a good amount of work to overhaul it, so I'm entertaining bring it to FL eventually. SnottyWong confer 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of entries. For FL, I think you need every entry adequately cited, but WP:WIAFL is the guideline. I only have gotten one FL passed so far, so I'm not the expert. On the upside, there's absolutely nothing wrong with simply replicating references from the individual fighter articles. It's just going to be a bear to do, though. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, tell me about it. It was a bear to create the table in the first place. I was trying to avoid having to pull all of the references as well, but I was pretty sure that that was going to be your answer. Maybe I can enlist some of the relevant wikiproject people to lend a hand. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Manifesta

Thank you for taking interest in renewing Manifesta. As an artist myself I am surprised that such a long-standing and detailed article is deleted so easily. Manifesta is a very influential cultural olympiad - Hans Ulrich Obrist was a founder which for artists says much. Please watch over this. It is dangerous that so many years of work by many different contributors can be switched off like this. Sorenonilsson (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia never deletes anything permanently. All "normal" deletions are visible to any of the 1000+ administrators, and can be restored in a few mouse clicks. Important mistakes are quickly spotted and corrected, but it may take longer for less visible mistakes to be remedied. It's an unfortunate downside to being an all-volunteer project, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It is I believe a contradictory culture because there are very many interested and informed people and mainly artists who have made many many contributions with good intention and accuracy. I would not like to contribute like that if somebody can just delete it. Thank you very much however. Please continue to do your work! Sorenonilsson (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan Cook

You may wish to look at this article, created by Colonel Warden, purportedly on the basis of this National Cataloguing Unit Progress Report. Although this is an old creation, I think that such a prolific-creator-of-articles is employing such methods calls into question the verifiability of a large swathe of Wikipedia. Are his inclusionist friends willing to weed through his creations/recreations to remove further instances of such 'creative sourcing'? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Person was eminent - getting large obit in Times. Ref added. Collect (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
So that a good source can be found makes using a completely bogus source alright? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Straw argument time? I only pointed out that instead of complaining about a source, it would take far less time to find a really strong source. Collect (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
When (i) the editor in question has a history of "bogus sources" (see above quotation), and this source was bogus, not merely "weak" as your edit summary suggested, & (ii) Jclemens has invited me to bring further problems I have with Colonel Warden here, then I will most certainly complain here about Colonel Warden's conduct -- which is what I saw as the main problem. (But that won't stop me from picking up on, and correcting, errors in the article text that the new source revealed.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Collect, thanks for trying to fix the issue. Hrafn is right, I did ask him to bring stuff here. I was specifically thinking of future issues, but a past source misuse is certainly within the scope of what I said. Jclemens (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
NP. I have had run-ins with CW in the past, but try at all times to work on fixing things more than complaining <g>. (note: I use the old emoticon because I am old). Collect (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The source cited at the start of this section contains good material when I look at it: an extensive biographical outline which starts "Alan Hugh Cook was born in Felsted, Essex on 2 December 1922 and educated at...". As Hrafn has misrepresented this, using such phrases as "bogus sources", "creative sourcing" and "fraudulent sourcing" he should please withdraw these personal attacks at all places where he has made them. These seem to be direct attacks upon my good faith, honesty and integrity and so are quite unacceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that the fault is mine. I searched in the source for "Alan Cook", but the substantive part only referred to him as "Cook, Sir Alan Hugh", "Alan Hugh Cook" or "Cook". I unequivocally apologise and retract any accusations. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it takes a lot to swallow one's pride and apologize for a mistake, Hrafn. Thanks for taking the time to do that. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:Josh Billings

Was just proposed for deletion by TFD. Of course he did not do the courtesy of notifying me. I suspect he will propose WP:KNOW for deletion again as well. Collect (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And...? Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You noted the userfy/delete business back at the end of September [15] and [16] - I was apprising you of the continued effort for deletion thereof. As no one ever notified me about such things, I sought to be courteous and notfy you <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
So he's following process this time, good for him. Make sure you are impeccably polite in the process. Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom?

There is certainly a lack of folks running at the moment. I'd like you to consider it... Hobit (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff I've screwed up in 2 years as an admin, which I'm happy to say I've learned from, but there's also a lot of unpopular opinions I hold, about which I am completely unrepentant--although many of them have grown and changed over the years. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but there are only about 7 folks there I can currently support, so... Hobit (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Me too, hence my wondering aloud who else might be interested in running. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hat: tossed into ring. Now the fun starts... Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't agreed with you on every issue I've encountered you on but I'd have no difficulties in supporting you for Arbcom as an intelligent, reasonable person dedicated to using their substantial experience with Wikipedia to effectively improve the project. Thanks for nominating. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. Jclemens (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I was prepared to agree with Hobit that you should run. Now that you have, I can support you, pretty much as "...an intelligent, reasonable person...", as mentioned. Thankfully there are enough open seats I can support several candidates. — Becksguy (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. If there were already enough candidates that I could support, I wouldn't be running, either. :-) Jclemens (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbcom Elections

Dear Jclemens, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

CSD RfC

Are you satisfied with the RfC draft? N.B., I restored an item that you had commented out. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not yet. Where can we collaborate on it, since we're on a talk page? Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
In hidden comments (they seem to suppress ~~~~ evaluation, unfortunately), a section that's later blanked, or here, if that's okay with you. It might be fastest to get a problem statement that we can both live with, moving disagreements and clarifications into our individual statements. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's do that--If we agree that certain other types of deletion shouldn't be precluded by an XfD, there's no need to have divergent takes on it. This page is fine for discussion. Shall we invite the third guy (name escapes me at the moment...) to work here too? I'd like to have things polished such that we can show the WT:DRV folks what we've done--I don't want to delay too much, just am really aware how a poorly-worded RfC can accomplish, oh, nothing. :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
We have two related topics – that sentence in the lead and the scope of G4 – that need to be summarized for the RfC and CENT notices. Inviting User:VegaDark might speed up the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Moved and notified VegaDark. Now at User:Jclemens/CSD-RFC Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I wanted to keep the draft's history in one place. Since VegaDark and I are satisfied with the current version, would you make some edits to react to? Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. We could histmerge to the page, but that might get complicated. I'll do it if you want. I seem to have acquired the necessity to block an established editor today AND somehow decided that running for ArbCom was a good idea. I may not get to this for a day or two. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, yet again

As I predicted previously (at an ANI thread, I think), Colonel Warden is never going to stop his crusade against consensus regarding cleanup tags, he is just going to continue being incrementally disruptive in different ways to see what he can get away with. See his recent edit here. Instead of deleting the cleanup tags, he is now moving them to the very bottom of the page to see if he can get away with it. This is CW's pattern of disruption: he gets yelled at by dozens of editors for doing something disruptive, then he waits a few days, then he tries something similar but ever so slightly different. If he gets yelled at again, then he waits a few more days and tries something else. If he doesn't get yelled at then he assumes he's found a loophole and continues doing it. He either needs to be temporarily blocked to send a message that he's not going to be able to successfully game the system, or he just needs to be topic banned from deleting or moving cleanup tags in general. SnottyWong confess 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I see no reasonable explanation for that. I'm tempted to block him straightaway, I've restrained myself and asked for an explanation first. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I seem to be a (talk page stalker) Surely it's not blocking to send a message, it's blocking to prevent the continued disruption of maintenance tags against community consensus and as previously notified...? Bigger digger (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
...as previously notified at least a dozen times. Just search ANI for Colonel Warden and look through the history on his talk page (as he has a habit of deleting messages he doesn't like). SnottyWong express 19:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
He appears offline at the moment. We'll see what he has to say for himself when he returns. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course he is, and by the time he comes back online you'll likely see any block as punitive rather than preventative. Excellent. AniMate 19:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Not this time, sir. I told you last time I was pretty much fed up. Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I can tell you what his response will be: "The cleanup tags took up too much space at the top of the article and they are duplicative with the {{rescue}} template, since they both are saying the same thing (i.e. that the article needs to be fixed). Therefore, there is no reason to have both rescue and cleanup tags at the top of the article." Whatever his excuse ends up being, it's going to be based on some fringe opinion of his for which no consensus has been formed (and he is very aware of this). I don't believe that CW is a particularly stupid person. He actually appears to be quite cunning to have avoided a block for this long. However, he is also very stubborn and he will not stop doing what he's doing until he receives a clear message: "Stop now or you will no longer be welcome to contribute here." SnottyWong gab 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I would be tempted to throw this back to ANI, I don't think there'd be too much doubt about the reaction there after the last discussion (which effectively said he was on a last chance). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Really? I wasn't thinking that would be necessary... Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the outcome at ANI would be extremely predictable. If we were to take this somewhere else, I'd vote for WP:RFC/U. SnottyWong talk 20:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It's cute that you think an RfC/U would be any different, like people wouldn't line up along the same ideological lines. Out of curiosity, what exactly do you plan to do about this Jclemens? You said you wanted to take point here. What is your plan of action? AniMate 20:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What would you propose? Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think he should have been blocked for this. He's continuing his disruptive behavior knowing that the community does not approve. You chose not to block. So, what do you intend to do? AniMate 20:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't blocked him yet. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This should have resulted in an immediate block. Screw ANI and RFC/U, for the moment: Is enough ever enough? We're supposed to have another cluster-fuck on ANI that mebbe asks someone to do an RFC/U which rolls right along through the US Thanksgiving, the ACE2010 dramafest, and into Christmas? All an RFC/U would boil down to would be: documentation for an ArbCase (useful), a megabyte or so of the usual bickering by the usual parties, including all here, no real resolution or agreement and then two months at RFAR. I've not even been keeping tabs on him; cf that I missed the whole-whatever in mid-October. Jack Merridew 20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you believe such an edit should result in a block without the offending editor being allowed to respond? I do not. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Given all the history, yes, I believe a block is warranted prior to any response; this will not preclude a response as locking his talk would be inappropriate and has not been suggested. I tidied the article and feel a tad better. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Normally, no. When an editor has been told to stop screwing around with maintenance tags, and has avoievaded a block at ANI by promising not to do do, then yes - no doubt. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of a no-brainer. I certainly wouldn't block if this was the first time he had screwed around with tags, but given his history and the complaints he has received... I'd block. AniMate 21:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
What on earth could Colonel Warden say that would excuse it? More pretending that he doesn't understand why his misbehaviour is misbehaviour? He couldn't be as clueless as he pretends to be when confronted on these issues and still manage to operate a keyboard. He's clearly intentionally disruptive. I will correct Black Kite on one point: CW has avoided a block, not evaded one. Clearly different activities.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Oops - typed that quickly and of course "evaded" and "avoided", whilst pretty much synonyms in The Real World, aren't here :) Black Kite (t) (c) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Jclemens, please impose a block, now; I suggest 48h, as this is overdue. You have three admins on-hand supporting the notion, plus one sockpuppet who's been here longer than anyone above supporting the idea. The issue here is that we all have some level of baggage with Colonel Warden, and you're more aligned with his overall view of the project and still see the problem. A block from one of the others above would be ineffective, cause drama at the usual place, and end-up undone. You have the power to address this now, in an effective manner; i.e. a block from a 'friend' will stick and drive the message home and may serve to obviate the route I outlined above. Seriously, Jack Merridew 22:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing my homework while corresponding here. Slowly, but such needs appropriate care. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I do feel that drifting too long gets things into punitive territory, which is not anyone's intent. You know my mantra with the arbs of the last few years? "More dispute resolution, less dispute prolongation." Disruptive users are a huge time-suck and they need to be dealt with more harshly simply out of fairness to the great many others who's time is being wasted. That's what people give the project: their time. And the serious people give value in the process. Disruptive users take a lot of time that might otherwise have been used for our core-goals. NB; I'm quite aware that about the same is said by some re the I/D schism, but I see a lot of parroting on this site and discount a lot of it as mere game-play.
I see you're working on Larry's questions; toughies, huh? Off to read them. Jack Merridew 22:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have two thoughts. The first is that, guys, there's no need to pressure Jclemens into performing a block NOW NOW NOW. A block is time-sensitive if it's needed to stop disruption currently in progress; a block that's for the purpose of "sending a message" (i.e. deterrence per WP:BLOCK) isn't time-sensitive. The second is that if the way Black Kite describes CW's promises at ANI is complete and doesn't skip over any nuance (I took a stab at turning up a diff, but, y'know, wow), a block seems completely warranted. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe you'll find an example of CW actually apologizing, admitting fault, or agreeing not to continue his behavior. He has largely ignored the complaints and warnings, and that is part of the problem. His only response to the latest ANI thread was a brief attempt to rationalize his actions. Any complaints on his talk page are routinely deleted by CW without response. So, the problem is not that he's promised never to do it again, and now he's breaking his promise. The problem is that he refuses to acknowledge that his actions are problematic, despite dozens of editors and admins unanimously telling him that he is being disruptive. SnottyWong comment 23:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI Admin comments section + evidence

Could you flesh out the case with more diffs and history? Others have started to respond to my ANI case request on that, but it's hard to separate out interpersonal conflicts and grudges from actual behavior problems.

I don't have any illusions that this is trumped up, but I would appreciate a more detailed evidence section and history from the admin pushing things.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything is linked into my initial section. There are several long discussions linked that many of the other participants already opining in the discussion were already familiar with. If you read them thoroughly, I believe you will find sufficient evidence that Colonel Warden has edited disruptively in at least four ways in the past six weeks, despite repeated warnings. If you go back at ANI beyond that, you will find 2+ years of other instances where he has been accused of gaming the system in various ways to stymie deletion of articles. While not an "exhausted the patience of the community" block, it is a block based on chronic behavioral problems than just the specific edit that prompted it. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Last edits

As shown by history of this talk page, I accidentally hit rollback on someone else's comment a moment ago, and then undid it when I realised what I'd done. Everything should be back the way it was but apologies for the confusion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

S'ok, I saw it and understood what had happened. We're all human. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Colonel

Are you out of your fucking skull? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In case it wasnt clear Id like you to explain why you indeffed an editor with over 20k contributions and AFAIK no previous sanctions. And then why you wrote an RFC style justification on the ANI drama board where many have pro deletion sympathies. At worst you could have given a 24 hour bloc and then started an RFC where there would at least a chance to see what the wider community thinks.
Btw, its been over 4.5 hours with no reply, but Ive not used this as an excuse to file an arbcom request for your desysop. Id encourage you to extend others the same courtesy before indeffing any more outstanding editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The full explanation of why CW is blocked is on the ANI thread, I suggest you read it (and perhaps try to forget for a moment your ties to ARS and inclusionism and read the thread objectively). I can't speak for Jclemens, but my guess is that the incivility of your initial comment here is likely the reason for the lack of response. SnottyWong confer 16:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm hardly Jclemens' biggest fan, but other than perhaps DGG, I can't think of a more impartial admin to have done this. "Are you out of your fucking skull?" is hardly a way to get a response from somebody either. His "contributions" are irrelevant - disruption is disruption, and he has had multiple warnings. An arbcom request for desysop, for this single action which has been pretty much endorsed by all who have commented, would be ridiculous. AD 16:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The Colonel modified his behaviour as per his talk, not sufficiently to satisfy all, but there was no need to go straight to an indef for something so minor as moving tags. Its fine for Jclemens not to respond within 4.5 hours , he may be otherwise engaged, but anyone competent in dispute resolution should have known the same might have been true for the Colonel. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The point is that no one went "straight to an indef". CW has been warned over and over and over again. In my opinion (and many other's, as can be seen in the thread above), he was warned too many times. If you focus on this single incident, then of course the block appears ridiculous. If you actually look at the history of the situation objectively and look at how many times CW was warned, and how many people have warned him, then the block is absolutely a no-brainer. Starting an RfC to desysop Jclemens over this block would probably get you laughed off of WP. SnottyWong chat 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible convey in simple, written text how much I wanted not to block him. It further chagrins me that his response has pretty conclusively demonstrated why that block was necessary. It is not credible to assert that one is unaware that consensus is that tags go at the top of an article when one has been on the record for 2+ years complaining of such, and has just been reprimanded at ANI for removing them. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That wasnt an explanation of why you went straight for an indef when a short block might have got the message across and possibly prevented further disruption. You might see yourself refered to with more respect on his talk if youre mediation hadnt been so one sided, with indifference to false allegations of fraud against the Colonel and telling him to "deal with" personal attacks thereby condoning it. After that its hard to see why you expected your warnings to be treated seriously especially as moving tags is far less hurtful than attacking other editors honesty and character. If you cant justify your block you should undo it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Indefinite is not infinite. The block is there until we work out what to do with the Colonel's disruptive behaviour. It's funny you mention attacking editors' honesty and character as being a bad thing, when Colonel Warden frequently does this to boost his "arguments" in AFDs. I should know as I've been on the receiving end of his abuse. AD 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I will look out for that and have a word with the Colonel if I see him do it again, we should all assume good faith. @JClemens, sorry for being uncivil on your talk, probably I should have thought it through a bit more before posting. I would delete this section by way of apology only I guess only you are allowed to do that now others have posted. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking over?

So, would one of the TPS be willing to start the RFC/U on Colonel Warden? I'm pretty much done. This would be easier if I didn't care, but I do, so... I'm done for now. Someone else can take over. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing, but like most people in the US this isn't exactly a convenient time for me to spend online drafting a RfC/U. Perhaps after the holiday, I'll give it a whirl if no one else has stepped up. AniMate 20:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I've completed a draft of an RFC/U at User:Snottywong/RfC draft#Cause of concern. If you have a chance, can you take a quick look at it and let me know if you have any comments? Thanks. SnottyWong comment 21:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll tidy it up a bit and see what else I can find; at least as time permits. I expect I'll have comments. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Offline

I will be offline for the next 16 hours or so; I have an exam that needs my undivided attention. I will return to the drama, answering ArbCom questions, and the like, once that has been handled. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm back. Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind doing a favor..?

The nominator wishes a close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Perfect (film) and as one who commented, I cannot do it. Might you? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Although I think that's taking the idea a bit too far: if 100% of the participants agree with an outcome, who is going to contest it? At any rate, I've closed it. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that was my thought too. But thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

Good evening Jclemens, I am sorry I couldn't respond because I was away for the last couple of days. I made the article when I first created the account, however you could say that my knowledge of WP:BLP was nonexistent. I was wondering if you could move the deleted article into my user space and I will make some time to review the article. Thanks, SixthAtom (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How about I email it to you instead? Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I plan on answering your questions on my talk candidate page, like SirFozzie has. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
They've been added there. Best. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Like 'em or hate 'em, my responses are up. Note the BLP one has its own section. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

AGF

Hey, I just wanted to let you know - I believe your actions with respect to CW were clearly in good faith and reasonable judgement. I see a lot of assumptions of bad faith around this, about your actions, but I don't agree with any of that.

You took it to ANI and talked it out and listened to the community. That's the right thing. A RFC/U should help set out parameters with CW for either less confrontational editing or a well supported community response.

Keep up the good work. We need admins willing to both call it as they see it, and open to community input. Balancing those is a real trick; you did good.

Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You definitely jumped right in the middle of it. :) That's why I don't get too involved in this kind of polarizing situation - agh, too much drama. Don't beat yourself up, man, I agree with GWH, and hope nothing but the best for both you and CW. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Ditto above! --EEMIV (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Tripple ditto. I feel really bad about being so uncivil yesterday. Keeping order is a thankless task, where if you do it right it unavoidable that youre going to perform actions some will hate. But its an essential task and AFAIK youve been very good at it, lots of us were really pleased when you stepped up to help Ikip a few months back so you are highly thought of. I hope you arent discouraged as there arent many really good active admins and thanks for not blocking me when I was so uncivil. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I've not been entirely as bothered by things as I might have given the impression. I've been balancing this and running for ArbCom along with my real life, and while it's never fun to be attacked by people one normally counts as friends, AGF applies to statements by others--I know those of you who were initially pretty ticked off had some honest feelings about the topic, and I appreciate that things look a little different after some consideration. To the extent that anyone needs or wants my forgiveness for anything you said to or about me, you have it. I just hope that Colonel Warden actually understands how much his carelessness has cost his friends--and I still include myself there, even if he would no longer do so--through this whole mess. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

pingback

Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#Reliable_sources Gigs (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On the last userspace RfC

Something I just remembered, there was actually rough consensus to go ahead with an automatic and immutable warning banner on all userspace subpages notifying readers that what they were reading was not an encyclopedia article. I never followed through with developing consensus on a wording or formatting, so it's not in Jira, but it might be something you could look into. It's going to be just as important as noindexing, since people could still link to their "fake articles" in userspace and ride our credibility if we don't have a warning banner. This would be even more problematic under your ideal scenario of a completely unmanaged and unpoliced space. Gigs (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW you five tilde'ed your last comment on the incubator. Gigs (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. I'll go fix. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "completely unmanaged" is appropriate description for what I propose. Have you seen WSQ's efforts at WT:BLPPROD? That's the sort of thing I favor--active searches for known-bad content. I'd be perfectly OK with automatic scrutiny on anything outside mainspace that gets more than a few hits in excess of edits to the page, too. Food for thought...
But at any rate, yes, I'd be willing to help draft such a warning banner. Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, in hindsight I figured you'd disagree with that characterization. Lets call it a "much larger amount of material that is less manageable". Edit counts could be useful, but grok.se still claims to be an experimental service that is liable to go away at any time, so I'm not sure how comfortable people would be with being too reliant on that. Gigs (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
If grok.se goes away, there will be more important things on Wikipedia that fail. At any rate, so we have consensus on a warning banner that's a year and a half old, and I agree that that's a worthwhile countermeasure. What do you think we should do from here? Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd say a low key RfC on WT:UP to determine the actual wording, then file a Jira and wait a few years. :) Gigs (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit...

Your edit here seems to have gotten lost in the intermediate revisions. Just letting you know so you can fix that if you so choose. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a weird conflict--probably a bug. At any rate, I've restored it. Thanks for the heads up. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Interspersed comments

[17] = please do not intersperse comments with those of other users, but instead feel free to add your own comments, below. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, my request is included as part of my comment, with respect to those very specific five categories only. I do not want the others restored, and am not objecting to the deletion of the "person" related categories on the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that actually makes sense. Please just go ahead and revert my closure of that separate DRV then, and note your objection there so no one else tries to be efficient. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you do that? Would be more appropriate coming from you, as I am the nominator for that other one (which is only on those five specific categories). Thank you very much, -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs for models

Your alter ego has recently been adding AfDs on fashion models -- or swimsuit models, who may or may not be the same -- to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography. But that already gets a fair number of arguably deletable photographers, and I think that fashion (and similar) models are of far less significance to photography than they are to fashion. There's already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fashion; could you please take articles on models there instead? Thanks ... Hoary (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, I can certainly do that. Sorry for the misdirection--I don't keep tabs on either DELSORT list. Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Epefleeche

Per this, I strongly object to the concept of you overturning the block.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So what do you propose instead? Leaving him blocked indefinitely on a relatively minor infraction that he (and a fair minority of the community) disagrees with is not helpful. I'm all ears. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
He remains blocked until he shows that he understands that he was canvassing. Canvassing is not a minor infraction, and e-mail canvassing is one of the worst.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me rephrase and summarize: The actions don't seem to be in dispute. He says "What I did wasn't impermissible canvassing". You say it was. There is widespread support for some sort of a block. If he doesn't think what he did was inappropriate, aren't you asking him to make a de facto admission of guilt? Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
If he doesn't think that what he did violated WP:CANVASS, he shouldn't be unblocked. If he thinks what he did was permissible, there's no reason to believe that he won't repeat it. If he makes an insincere statement of understanding he'll still be unblocked, but the block on the next repetition will simply be indefinite.—Kww(talk) 17:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you instead ask for an agreement that he won't repeat the disputed action while it's under discussion? I've reread the wording of your block--you're consistent, but you're asking him to admit guilt as a condition of bail. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Because there's no serious dispute over the violation. If there was, you could generate a consensus that my block terms were excessive. The support he's getting is basically from the standpoint that canvassing isn't a serious violation, or neglects the damage done by turning AFD discussions into quagmires. DGG's argument is hilarious: "since the canvassing was ineffective, it shouldn't count as a violation"(paraphrased) isn't an argument, not in the least because it presupposes the ineffectiveness of the canvassing. We seriously do not need editors that make efforts to disrupt the AFD process, and that's what this was: Epefleeche wanted the articles to be kept, and sought to draw as many people to the discussion as possible in the hope of generating enough discussion to gain either "keep" or "no consensus" as an outcome. It's the e-mail that's more damning than the 65 postings.—Kww(talk) 18:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'd urge you to reconsider focusing the unblock requirements on the condition that he not repeat the behavior. You can even ask for an acknowledgment that a majority of editors have opined that his behavior was unacceptable; I'm still fine with that. The goal here is to rehabilitate him such that he can function effectively and within community norms, is it not? What purpose does extracting a confession from him serve? Nothing is harmed by leaving him a little bit of dignity and allowing him to say "I was wrong" rather than "I was bad", is there? Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I've said multiple times in the discussion that I could accept an argument along the lines of "the 65 postings were made in an effort to correct the damage done by the existing e-mails", which would acknowledge the violation of policy without making him grovel. I've no desire to make him grovel, but he has to admit that his actions were in violation of WP:CANVASS. He's free to claim he felt justified in violating it, or morally compelled to do so, but not to claim that he did not do so.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. We're closer than we were when we started, but still not in alignment. In the unlikely event that he makes an unblock request that satisfies my criteria but not yours, I may go ahead and unblock him, but for collegiality's sake, I'd much rather you do it. But as others have pointed out, he hasn't been back to make such a request. Likewise, that's a relatively small subset of potential unblock requests: odds are that he'll write one acceptable to both of us or neither. And, of course, my unblock follow-up (full hearing at RFC/U) in no way let him off the hook. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Interbellum Generation

Could you undelete Interbellum Generation? Sources mentioning it include:

Smallman12q (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Feel free to add the sources you've found. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Colons, sorry, thanks

I feel like such a numbskull for forgetting the colons. I'm really sorry about that. Thanks very much for the reminder.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, been there, done that, which is why I picked up on what was going on. We all gotta chip in and help out! :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Taubman Institute

I tagged the article for AfD as you suggested I might to in the edit summary. The page is here. There are a couple of questions. The AfD template on the article is giving a red link to the AfD page; but the raw code doesn't have any URL's or wikilinks, so I can't see how to fix it. Also, the AfD message template on the article page seems to say that an AfD was closed today with a result of keep:

<!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Taubman Institute|date=5 December 2010|result='''keep'''}} -->

Obviously no AfD has taken place; the article is a day or two old. Could you help me fix the red link, and explain the admin comments in the AfD template, please? — Fly by Night (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have fixed the red links. Twinkle hasn't been adding underscores in places of spaces in article title. That seems to leave a red link for some unknown reason. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... that's odd. I could have sworn it used to do that just fine. Is everything squared away now? Jclemens (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Except for that admin template I posted above, saying the was an RfA deciding to keep the article. Which clearly isn't so. The article is only a few days old. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Frank Okey in Tennis

Hi Jclemens, It appears from the news articles that I have now cited and linked in the article Frank Okey that Mr. Okey played in the 'Main Draw' of the US National Tennis Championship at Forrest Hills in 1952, which is the US Open. Thus, the article now reflects that Mr. Okey does pass the criteria for notability for tennis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Tennis. This is the first article that I've posted, so I'll look forward to more feedback. Please let me know if I've not posted this feedback in the correct place. Thanks, Aldoleopold —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldoleopold (talk • contribs) 08:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied at his talk page and directed him to the AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden RFC/U

FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. SnottyWong yak 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Saw it, thanks. Will comment later. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Poor sources

Are you sure that removing the unsourced tag from these is really helping? Particularly the ones sourced only to MySpace. I think it might be more useful to leave them where they were, and where they are more likely to receive some attention, than throwing them into a larger backlog. Kevin (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced is unsourced, poorly sourced is poorly sourced. These articles were not unsourced; they were poorly sourced. Repeated attempts to redefine "unsourced" have failed to achieve consensus. If there is some implication that "refimprove" is substantially different than "unreferenced", it is illusory--neither are acceptable, but calling an article with a source "unsourced" has the added fallacy of being inaccurate. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I fully expect that once all the unsourced BLPs are sourced or removed, we'll be tackling the under-sourced ones next, such that all I've really done by correcting the tags is reprioritized those out of the current pool of work, and into the next. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I find it especially troubling that you feel that MySpace should be considered a reliable source for a BLP. The criteria for changing unreferenced to refimprove should be the existence of at least one reliable source with a connection to the subject. Kevin (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
(tps attack) I don't really agree. IMO, unreferenced means just that, no references whatsoever. Only-references-that-suck is a situation for refimprove. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec with my TPS...) I never said it was reliable, nor would I, because it's not. Myspace, facebook, youtube, personal websites--none of them are reliable sources, and at best they're SPS'es. BUT, they are sources. Bad ones, unreliable ones, ones that should never be used to support anything contentious... but they're still sources. {{BLP unsourced}} does not mean "sources, just no reliable ones", that's called {{BLP refimprove}}. Go read the template documentation. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Note the bit about it being cited {{BLP unsourced}} wording and adding of reliable source. 'This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources'. Now you could claim either or those apply; citing any source or adding a reliable source, but if neither apply then removal of {{BLP unsourced}} doesn't make sense. The instance of only a myspace source in an external link is neither a reliable source nor cited. Such articles still require the BLP unsourced tag. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
No, an external link (to a relevant page, of course) is still a source. It doesn't have to use inline citations to be a reference sufficient to be "not unsourced". If you have to explain to a newbie why a particular link doesn't count as a source, refimprove is clearly better than unsourced: we should never be requiring non-intuitive usage that relies on technical understanding of Wikipedia policies for things as simple as cleanup templates. Likewise, there should never be an instance where a template would be inappropriate to add fresh, but an existing template should remain. KISS is important. :-) Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Request

Could you please rephrase your request a little more courteously? What you wrote makes it look as if it was intentional. It was evidently an accident. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact I am slightly perplexed. Here is the diff as I see it where I added my comment. [18] Is this a software glitsch? Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the edit I made to a section on ANI. [19] I reverted my edit [20] and then copy-pasted the content back. [21] Please check this for yourself. At this point seeing the diff of my first addition I am unable to help you or for that matter understand what is going on at a technical level. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
And that is what I see when I click on the history of WP:ANI. My conclusion is that you have made some kind of error somewhere. Mathsci (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I see this was as accident that happened much earlier in the day! I hope I have restored the content accidently blanked and am sorry for all this confusion. Apologies again. Mathsci (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A Proposal

I've jotted down some ideas for reforming the ARS at User:Snottywong/ARS proposal, some of which were inspired by ideas you had a few months ago. Take a look when you get a chance and let me know if you think it has any merit. SnottyWong confer 00:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Will look at it, but my first comment is... "bury the name". There's enough bad blood associated with the name that I'd rather start fresh. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
No disagreement there. SnottyWong chat 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, it's not exactly the nicest sounding of names :) AD 19:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yet it has a degree of accuracy in some cases... (kidding, relax) SnottyWong spill the beans 19:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The closest I would come to the existing name is "article rescue". Much like "third opinion", it denotes an encyclopedia-relevant function that can and should be done by all. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Results are in

What? What do you mean you didn't know about the robes? I thought the only reason anyone ever ran for such a thankless job was so that they could get a nice set of plush golden robes. "In it for the community" you say? Bah! The bling is where it's at. Even the Supreme Court can't top this swag. You could pawn this for a house! Why the heck else did you think that the foundation needed 20 million dollars?

So you're really serious about the whole "helping the community" and "for the good of the project" business? Aww, shucks. Go ahead and keep the robe anyways then. Do us proud.

Congratulations on your victory, may your tenure be peaceful and have a net low adverse interaction on your sanity. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

... and so are you.  :-) Welcome. — Coren (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. pablo 01:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both very much. I note that I'm one of the lower-ranked "top 12", so I'm waiting to hear from Jimbo before I count on my appointment. Still, it's quite humbling and a bit surprising how much support the community has expressed. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget BLPN. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've been "celebrating" by taking a chainsaw to my watchlist, because there's plenty of good debates and discussions where others will just have to pick up the slack. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
& congrats too :) Black Kite (t) (c) 01:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Can I officially call you a chicken for not running too, or would that violate WP:NPA? ;-) Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I'll let that one go - cluck, cluck (for some reason, I typed "quack" then, it's clearly too late to be editing) :) Black Kite (t) (c) 01:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No matter if you are selected or not, I did want to congratulate you on doing so well in the elections. While ultimately I didn't feel comfortable in supporting, yours was the most difficult vote out of all of the candidates. I do believe that if you are selected, you would do a fine job. Best, NW (Talk) 01:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

And I have absolutely no problem with principled opposes. I fully understand I have takes on many issues that other dedicated editors hold different views on, and that's OK. I think being overruled by the community gives one constant practice in consensus building: if people can't handle having their ideas shot down, they've got no place even running. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Yes, Risker, got your email and will be following through with the paperwork presently. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations. Hope you have enough time to stay involved. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Blimey

That was quick! You beat me to that deletion sorting. Oh, are you an Arb now? *bows, scrapes, backs away slowly* Fences&Windows 00:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Naah, my identification papers are lounging in someone's inbox, so I'm killing time before I get the secret handshake and decoder ring by doing actual work around here.... ;-) Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, BTW, do you prefer the Porshe or the Jag? — Coren (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
You know, in all seriousness, if someone offered me any car in the world, I'd pick an Acura TL. Been a Honda driver pretty much all my driving years, and I see no reason to quit even in the face of unprecedented fame and fortune. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Well as long as your chauffeur's happy with your choice and the engineering's good enough that you don't spill your drink on tight corners, why not? pablo 00:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I suppose I wasn't clear enough. As an arb, you get to pick which car you do not get.  :-) — Coren (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please Undelete "User:CarsonTaylor

Please undelete my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarsonTaylor (talk • contribs) 02:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You have the right to create something that's remotely acceptable, but your userpage isn't coming back. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, since you seem to think vandalizing pages is OK, I've made your "retirement" no longer optional. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Query

Where do you see the "3+" reverts that you mention here? Where do you see strong consensus that we should include the racial category? --John (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no less than two BLP-active admins (Jayjg, SlimVirgin) and a couple of other users telling you that it's not an issue at BLPN. More importantly, they are citing reliable sources and you are not. Allow me to explicitly add my voice to that chorus: it's not a clear-cut enough issue for you to edit war and claim BLP over it. Review the history of the article, I believe you'll find three reverts in the past 24 hours. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
yep, three in 11:21. Or is one of those not reverting over this issue? Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
So, is that 3 or "3+"? --John (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't seem to have replied to this. Can you clarify whether you saw "3" reverts from me or if it was "3+" as you said at AN/I? Could you also please re-examine whether you still think "there exists a clear consensus that there is not an actionable BLP issue"? Sorry to be a nuisance but I'm a bit of a stickler for accuracy in users' comments on others. In the future it might be worth really looking carefully in detail at both the edits and the discussions before commenting, to avoid this sort of accuracy problem. --John (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
As a stickler for accuracy, I'm sure you're aware that "3" and all subsequently larger counting numbers are included in "3+"; the lack of prior reply should be taken as a rough gauge of my level of interest in the distinction. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
That distinction wasn't clear to me and may not have been to others. I request that in any future situation involving numbers, you quote the actual number you see rather than use unclear terminology like this. Again, if you're not that interested in a situation (interested enough to be accurate or to properly examine the situation), there is no shame in refraining from making a comment and leaving to others who have sufficient interest to do so. Per WP:ADMIN, I generally try to answer good-faith queries within 24 hours. Why did this take you a week and a reminder? --John (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Because no reply was necessary the first time. Just because you think a distinction is important doesn't mean that it is. And, in case there's any uncertainty lurking about, further posts from you on the topic are not welcome. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

TPS help?

So, does anyone have a recommendation for an IRC program which will work well on Mac OS X? I'm looking for free as in beer, but free as in freedom would be even better. I'm not afraid of needing to run it in a Unix window if needed. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Why not try an in-browser Java or Flash IRC solution? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, because I haven't really used IRC for more than an hour ever. When I started using IRC, it was called Bitnet Relay, so I'm pretty clueless, really. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh wow, okay, I thought your question was at the other end of the spectrum. In that case Java or Flash might really be your thing, most of them make it super easy for you. Just google "Browser IRC" or something similar. Do you know what you're doing with connecting to ports and channels or do you need a manual to go with it? If you're intent on having standalone software, WP has a really neat comparison list here which is totally not encyclopaedic and should probably be nominated for deletion after you're done relying on it. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There's Chatzilla, which, if you use Firefox, is available as an add-on (caveat - I have used it, but I don't really use IRC either, far as I remember it worked OK last time) pablo 11:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I used to use ircle back in the day... SnottyWong gossip 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Nevermind, that's not freeware. Umm, I think ShadowIRC is free. Or just take a look at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Operating system support. SnottyWong speak 15:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a mac user, but i know some people use Snak and seem to think its ok.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Boots you after 15 min if you don't pay for it ... pablo 16:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Mike Kofler

Hi, as the creator of this page, I support its deletion. This was one of the first things I did on Wikipedia, not fully understanding the notability guidelines and how sourcing was used on this site. Thanks for helping to improve this site. BubbaStrangelove (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and the feedback. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Blurb on you

Hi Jclemens, I wonder whether you'd mind reviewing the short blurb on you at The Signpost's "Election report", which is due for publication in not much more than 24 hours. I cobbled together the information from your RfA, your userpage, and wherever else I could, hoping it's not a plain repetition of the information about you that was part of the election process. Some of it might be a little out-of-date, and please check for balance, inclusion, tone, etc. We are happy if you edit it yourself, if necessary. Thanks. Tony (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a bit more, and tweaked it a bit to focus on what I've done more recently. I haven't reviewed a GA or used Huggle in a while... :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

-en-admins

I've added you to the -en-admins access list. In order to join, you will need to first identify to NickServ (see also: /msg NickServ HELP IDENTIFY), then ask ChanServ to invite you to the channel (see also: /msg ChanServ HELP INVITE). --slakr\ talk / 02:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, I will be requesting a cloak. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations from me as well. I look forward to working with you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and to everyone not specifically thanked above as well... Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
.........and try to keep the veiled legal threats and accusations to a minimum!  Giacomo  07:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Really, Giano? You, of all people, have a problem with straight-talk? Somehow, that seems... Well, I'll let it go at that, unless you tell me you really want to hear my honest opinion. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have to say that I also found your straight talk comments below the standard I would expect in an Arbiter, I hope this is not going to be the way you intend to continue, perhaps it can be attributed to a temporary rush of blood the head in an imagined assumption of authority. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I am more than willing to hear your "straight talk" because there is quite a lot more that I have to say too about the incompetence of the Arbcom's security.  Giacomo  16:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A seemingly unfair nomination to delete another article at Wikipedia

Hello Mr. admin, I stumbled upon an AfD here at [22]. The page at Edward Vinatea is to be deleted for sure very soon. This user Quable the nominator, took away citations from the book of Grammy and other supporting links including one of Billboard.com [23]. Then, he nominated the subject who is an audio engineer for deletion [24] claiming that he didn't meet notability. For producers and engineers at Wikipedia, it's common practice to list the work they've done with their artists and this seems to be user Quable's confusion. But regardless, can someone remove so many reference links before nominating any article for deletion like that? Shouldn't the nominator simply nominate and let the rest of us form an opinion about these references first? I thank you in advance for your reply. 66.235.168.60 (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I took a look at the history of the page in question, and Quable's edit summaries explain just about everything they have done to the article. Quable was just removing unreliable sources, and sources which didn't verify the sentences which cited it. It looks like he/she started trying to clean the article up, and then later decided to nominate the article for deletion. If you think these sources are valuable, feel free to mention them at the AfD. Otherwise, going around asking random admins for unspecified help could be seen as canvassing. The AfD already appears to be full of SPA's, so your opinions might be taken more seriously if you register an account instead of editing anonymously. SnottyWong prattle 17:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Heck -- I can not find any basis for notability on this one. I really tried too. Collect (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wisdom, advice, warnings, cautions, imprecations, and whatnot.

Now that I have been both elected an appointed to ArbCom, I would like to open a thread for TPS'ers (and others who happen to stumble upon it) to provide their feedback, including but not limited to the sorts I've listed above, on the eve of my assuming the duties of an arbitrator. So, if you had any "unsolicited" advice, it's no longer unsolicited. And to be perfectly clear, I'm explicitly welcoming feedback from Wikipedians who opposed me--not to re-argue debates on which we both know we differ, but to express your views on things I will be caring about as an arb, not an admin or editor. The floor is open. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I want to make this quick and easy to understand. I saw you delete the WereBear article. I probably should of went to your talk page and ask permission first, but I recreated the page with references. I just don't understand. Deleting an article about a toy because the toy is obscure is like killing someone because they are illiterate. I do not mean to argue with you or enrage you. Have a Happy Holiday. Since you are a high-ranking contributor, I respect you and do not intend to do anything you find offensive, insulting, or just plain mean. Ian Fairchild (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken. Recreating a deleted article with references is perfectly acceptable. In many cases, deleted articles can be restored just for the asking. Most of the deletions I do are supposedly non-controversial, which means one editor says "this needs to go", a week passes in which anyone at all can object, and after that week an admin (this is where I usually step in) actually performs the deletion, assuming that the reason given wasn't objectively unreasonable. The good news about that sort of deletion is that even if someone notices after the fact, the article can be restored without fanfare or drama, just based on the say-so of another editor in good standing. I realize it can be terribly confusing, but the key thing to remember is that on Wikipedia, deletion is not forever--just until circumstances change. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Stargate Universe seasonal articles

Hey, I reverted your revert at List of Stargate Universe episodes, I made another edit, and don't want to come over to do a sneaky revert. I'm not sure what you meant with your edit summary "except that the transcluded season 2 article has no episode summaries. Feel free to redo JUST season 1, or redo both of them once the summaries have been copied to the season 2 article" The episode list at Stargate Universe (season 2) is exactly the same, as it was at List of Stargate Universe episodes, and it has episode summaries, unless you mean episode 11 forward, but those never had summaries. Xeworlebi (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I overlooked the changes to S1, too, that relegated the episode summaries to the individual season articles. I think that's overkill for a show that's only going to ever have 40 episodes total, and I've said as much on the talk page. No, there's nothing wrong with your subsequent edit, but thanks for double-checking. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Star trekking

  • Sorry to drag you into this but I cite your recent contribution to an AFD in this discussion. Editors there seem to be demanding an absurd level of perfectionism and, by your example, I sought to demonstrate that this is not reasonable. I used this fresh example because my contribution followed yours and so I read it at the time. You were quite correct to suppose that there would be some source for this and I provided one. Is this not good? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Heh. You're absolutely welcome to quote that in whatever context may be beneficial, but I will note that the second half of the remark was generally humorous in nature, and so denoted by a smiley. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Quality_of_AFD_arguments

Given the number of times you have taken me to task for using my own judgement in closing AFDs and accusing me of ignoring the discussion, I'm astonished that you would advocate closing admins making their own assessment of sources rather then rely on the assessment of the discussion. Surely we would have much better consensuses if the AFD participants properly evaluated the value of the sources offered rather then leaving it to admins to make their own minds up on the matter? Spartaz Humbug! 03:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you misremember my criticisms. Closing admins are not to insert their own arguments or sources, but they can and should evaluate the arguments made by participants. That's not just looking at the policy basis of the arguments, but also the factual basis. If editor A says "X is an RS" and editor B says "X is not an RS", how is a closing admin to evaluate the basis of the arguments? By looking at the conflicting statements, the underlying evidence, and then evaluating which of them happens to be correct. Oh, and if a potentially closing admin sees a deficiency in the argument that is obvious to him or her, then the appropriate thing to do is to dive right in and participate in the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Or relist the damn thing with directions. Spartaz Humbug! 09:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
That works, too. :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Which is what I did to the AFD that led me to leave my comment... Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Curious

I'm not so much involved, just curious... editor User:LouisPhilippeCharles has now socked at least twice, under IP's, in defiance of his block, in order to continue editing. He was told very explicitly how to build edits during his block without them appearing in wikipedia itself until the block expires, and obviously doesn't give a rat's patootie about sticking with the rules. So I wonder if his month block should be reset every time he evades the block? Or should it be made much longer, or indefinite? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I had also raised this issue at the most recent blocking admin's page, and I see that he already raised it at ANI, so "never mind". :) It is worth pointing out that when I first started at wikipedia, not knowing anything about how it worked, I did in fact do what I advised the editor to do: write the article in Notepad, and then test it on wikipedia, before "committing" it. It's not that much extra effort to do it that way, just a few more keystrokes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
So, I don't remember this guy--did I have some previous interaction with him I don't remember, or are you just asking me as an arb-elect? Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You were the blocking admin on December 8th. But I think it's covered. No issue. I'm just a bit irked that the guy wouldn't do what we suggested so that he could build up some edits and apply them once his block was done (it has now been extended). But as the saying goes, it's his funeral. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. I just enacted the ANI consensus on that one. I block editors with more than a trivial number of contributions so rarely, I didn't think to associate the two. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability of clergymen

Hi, I started a discussion as to the notability of clergymen at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Clergymen, your input is welcome. J04n(talk page) 15:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons administrator request

For TPS who may be interested I've self-nom'ed for commons admin, here. Support would be welcome and appreciated. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thiik AfD

Grr, thanks for listing it on DELSORT ... that had escaped my feeble mind.  RGTraynor  00:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Gene93k appears to have taken the day off. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hogmanay greeting

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on your successful ArbCom candidacy (belated)

Hey, I just wanted to give a very belated congratulations on your appointment to the ArbCom. I recall having interacted with you in the distant past and I feel as though I've disagreed with you on something or other, although I can't quite recall exactly what it is. In any case, I'm confident you'll do a good job.

By the way, I have a hard time believing you've been an admin for two years now. I distinctly remember supporting your adminship nomination, which I wasn't surprised to see at the RfA listing. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, "get elected to ArbCom" was not on my list of 2010 goals, I must say... yet here I am! Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Francis Moriarty

This article has been deleted. It was not written by me, and I have no idea at all how it got on Wiki in the first place, although I am the subject (full disclosure). The article has appeared for quite some time and a number of people have viewed it. I have had no objection to its presence and, perhaps immodestly, it appeared to meet your general guidelines, including notability. It was factual, but over time came to contain a piece of personal information that needed updating to be entirely correct. I did not know how to go about having this done and may have inadvertently broken your guidelines by seeking to edit and correct it; if so, my apologies. No self-promotion whatsoever is involved. If you search elsewhere in Wikipedia the name will appear in a number of categories. I would like the article to be re-instated, if possible, and although I have read any number of guideline pages I am still unclear on how to do this properly. I also cannot figure out how to directly reach Jclemens, who deleted the article, for assistance and I am hoping that this works. Any help would be most appreciated. I must also apologize because I am equally unsure about inserting the tilde and hope that I am doing it correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclemens&action=edit&section=new# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.168.47 (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason the article was deleted was that the original author had been editing Wikipedia in defiance of a prohibition on doing so. The Wikipedia community's reaction to such efforts is to delete the articles created under such conditions, with the primary goal of denying the ability of banned users to influence the encyclopedia. A secondary, unintended consequence is that occasionally worthwhile articles are deleted, and you're telling me that this was one of those cases. It is entirely acceptable for any editor to undertake a new article on this same topic, starting off from scratch and following all the pertinent guidelines, several of which you just mentioned above. Does that help? Feel free to ask follow-up questions here. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
First off, to Jclemens, thank your for your earlier replay, and I apologize once again for not having a grasp of how to use this system properly. I have posted my response to your comments on my own user page, though I don't know who sees that, if anyone. In sum, I am wondering why an article that is still preserved by Wiki, and was accurate after editing, cannot be reposted rather than have to wait for someone else to be sufficiently interested to post another one like it? I would have a conflict of interest to start one, even if I were sufficiently egotistical and self-promotional to try it. What to do? Please see my user page for the rest of my thoughts. Francis Moriarty 02/10/11 (219.77.191.226 (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC))
If you'd like to create an article about yourself, you are allowed, but strongly discouraged, per WP:COI. If you do write about yourself, take care to write in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Timely Revisions to Darrell Issa Biography

I find it somewhat questionable that Congressman Issa's biography here has received a thorough coat of whitewash not only within 24 hours of his comments alleging corruption in the Obama administration, but also just days before he assumes chairmanship of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Any explanation?

70.231.254.65 (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing WP:BLP violations is never inappropriate. I was asked to take a look at the article via the OTRS process. Jclemens (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability for Dog Brothers

They were featured on National Geographic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCO9ZsYGDA But I heard of them on a national TV station, then searched for them and found the deleted page on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.180.205 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you like the article back so you can help improve it? All you need to do is ask. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the article should be undeleted. I don't want to improve it - I was just searching for them and noticed the deleted page so I notified you that NG finds them notable enough to make an hour long show about them.

Your view is solicited by me

  • Here. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    An involved opinion perhaps? The reason I request your view is to understand whether you, the primary author of the essay, believe the article is/isn't worthy enough to be included. The fact that the essay has remained for much time in the guideline has been because it has the relevant definitions provided for differentiating between low and high profile individuals. On one hand, the fact that it has remained as a link within the guideline over time proves it has gathered consensus. On the other, one editor removing it proves that there may be quarters not submitting to that consensus. My worry is, there is none better an essay/article that provides such a logical differentiation between high and low profile individuals. And removal of such essays from our guidelines would only lead to more confusion reigning within nouveau and even established editors, who're continually convinced about their presumptions on what BLP1E alludes to. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    Well, part of the reason *I* never tried to include it in the guideline itself is that it is written in a highly informal, perhaps outright improper, style. I note that some of the links were "improved" when it was part of the policy document, but I'm not sure that changes the fact that fundamentally, it's more like WP:OUTCOMES than WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

World War II case

When you have a moment, could you kindly return to the proposed decision, and indicate your first choice between proposed principle 4 and added alternative proposal 4A? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

YA Global

I was wondering why you took the page down. It is far from a attack page, and was something that I have researched this case for over the last month well before taking it to Wiki. WPPilot 19:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs)

I was in the process of posting to your talk page when you left this message. Hopefully that detailed message explains my reasoning appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

haha np. Can you help create the page on YA, it was not intended to be a attack, in any way that just seems to be all the data I can find in the public, the courts and the media. How do you suggest I proceed? (WPPilot 19:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs)

Can you rollback the SEDA rollback, please? That info REALLY does not belong in that particular article. I can email you the deleted article if you have your email enabled. It really needs to be 1) balanced, at least a bit more, and 2) specific accusations/aspersions cited to particular reliable sources. Once you've done that, upload it into your user space and we'll chat more about it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok fair enough Let me rewrite a YA Global as well as the SEDA and I will upload them into userspace as per req: Thanks for your help (WPPilot 20:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs)
... and the latest version of YA Global should be in your inbox about now. Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
.. Got it thank you sir. I will redraft and chat with you in a day or so to get it posted, thanks. (WPPilot 22:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding comment added by WPPilot (talk • WPPilotcontribs)

Simon Ghahary user page

Dear Editor, please can you restore my page as I'm in between setting up a new website of for my new products. I designed the Minipod and pod range of speakers for B&W and Scandyna and ran and founded the Blueroom Released record label. I have a holding page at moment www.simonghahary.com and have just designed the cover for the Orb featuring David Gilmour - Metallic Spheres. I'm also the resident artwork designer for the band the ORB.

I did have quite a comprehensive site for si-fi.com my last product range but have since taken this down, as we have put the range on hold.

Would really appreciate your help on this and any advice to make my page more interesting as I get a lot of correspondance for my designs.

(Orbman12 (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

Restored and tagged. Feel free to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(Orbman12 Thanks! will do (Orbman12 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

Miracle Marketplace

Can you please undelete Miracle Marketplace so I can fix it up? I found plenty of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, have at it! Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, the prod-deletion was out of process since the article previously had an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miracle Center) that closed as keep. I can see how you missed this one, since the AFD was at a different name and I don't think the oldafdfull ever got put on the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up--no, I don't check to that level of detail on PRODs. I'm surprised you even found that. At any rate, happy editing. Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Ark

A deletion debate you voted in a while back is open again. Thought you might want to take a look. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ark (Transformers) (2nd nomination) Mathewignash (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg
Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Simon Higgins

Dear jclemens, G’day! I'm Simon Higgins, an Australian author. :) A couple of years ago (I think it was) I put the responsibility for generating an accurate Wikipedia article about myself and my works into the hands of an enthused and sincere relative who was acting as my 'home publicist' and writing from this address. I now belatedly gather they did a great job of irritating Wikipedia editors by not studying the guidelines before basically just cutting and pasting fragments of publicity articles together and also leaving a trail of inappropriate 'name droppings' across the encyclopaedia. I also now see that a number of editors have had to address this and now that I’m done squirming, would like to take charge of my end (as I should have in the beginning...sigh). Above all, my sincere apologies for any editorial time that has been inadvertently wasted. Here's my dilemma: I've just studied your guidelines and as I interpret them, I do appear to qualify for the posting of a factual and sourced article, most likely in your alphabetical section of Australian Writers. I would seem to easily fulfil all the criteria my colleagues there have been edited and validated under, e.g. writing professionally since 1998, published by Random House in Australia, the Hachette Group in the US, and also in print in Germany, Indonesia and other countries (all of which can be sourced and backed up with ISBNs for each book). Have also won verifiable, legitimate awards. But while I appear to qualify, I'm also aware of the 'no writing articles about yourself' guideline. I use and greatly appreciate Wikipedia so the last thing I want to do is waste any more of anybody's time. Could you please advise me on the steps I should take to supply you with material for an article that you will find both acceptable and helpful? I can touch type at 50 words a minute but am otherwise a bit of a luddite (born in the wrong era I guess) and my actual computing skills are relatively basic. Any advice you may have on simple steps I can take (assuming it's appropriate for me to actually take them at all), or perhaps contact details for any editor or third party compiling entries on Australian authors (to your satisfaction) that you could send me, would be most appreciated. I’d be happy to supply accurate raw material to anyone else you deem more appropriate and credible to pen the article, then fact-check their work later and add appropriate updates. Example; I currently have interest shown from a major Hollywood film studio in one of the Moonshadow books, and am shortly to have work published in some further countries, and I could add updates on these as they unfold, (or in the case of the film deal, if it unfolds)...? Warmest wishes and many thanks, Simon Higgins www.simonhiggins.net Literati666 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Any TPS want to help this gentleman write an NPOV article about himself? Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Col Warden

Now that the RFCU is closed ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authenticity in art. Sigh. I'm not going to spam this everywhere, just to the originators and the closer of the RFC. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

take a look, JC, at what Uncle G and (to a much lesser extent) I have found and said at the AfD. . Perhaps indeed you can do something about BK and Hrafn in their persecution of a good editor who added an excellent and demonstrably relevant reference. . DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
So, since I'll be recused on this about in about every way imaginable, I suppose it's not hurting anything to offer an opinion here. Which I fully intend to do once I've had time to digest the topic. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
BK has (at least at the moment) quit wikipedia over this lil' 'ol AfD.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd noticed. He may well return--he has retired before, only to return to activity later. It's an entirely non-disruptive departure, which is to his credit despite his evident frustration. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Article rescue template

This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

Hello, I updated {{User Article Rescue Squadron}} with a new graphic and would like to ask if you would mind if I carried through the change to the related template in your userspace at User:Jclemens/Rescues? Cheers. KimChee (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So you just want to update the picture? Be my guest--I just snagged what the ARS had been using previously when I first created that userbox. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I also tweaked the background color to make the new life preserver stand out. KimChee (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Epic win


 The Surreal Barnstar
For totally making my day with the unexpected use of the word "brouhaha" (which you will notice is one of my favorite words) in this edit, I give you this surreal barnstar. Thanks for lightening up the end of a very long, exhausting day. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 07:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I think. First Barnstar I've ever been awarded solely for my vocabulary, I must say. Jclemens (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Wikipedia talk:Non-free content}}

Please undelete Blue Marble Geographics

Hi, I would like to see the Blue Marble Geographics page undeleted if possible. It's been marked (Expired PROD, concern was: Sources do not establish notability.) If it needs edits to do that, let me know what I need to do to establish notability and I'll fix the page up so it meets wikipedia guidelines for articles. Thanks! LMartz (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been one. Please feel free to address the issues which prompted its deletion. Jclemens (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

eXBii userification

This request is with regards to Wikipedia entry of CGS Infotch Ltd - A public corporation in Mumbai, India. The company's earlier name was Cyberweb Global Services Ltd. Most reference links used the old name. Can you restore the page so that I can add this clarification? Also, suggest any other improvements that you feel are required. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gicarke (talk • contribs) 10:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Gicarke (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_November_4

With ref. to your message above, can you tell me what i could possibly do to try and improve the page? Perhaps prod me along in the right direction for the same if possible.

Thanks a lot.

Siddhesh (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you'd like a copy restored to your user space, so I can comment on where it needs work and you can improve it with an eye towards putting it back into mainspace? Or are you looking for pointers for starting over? Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please restore a copy to my user space. Some pointers on where i could possibly improve it would be much appreciated as well. :) Siddhesh (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, it's at User:Siddhesh/Exbii now. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Could you give any pointers on how i could go about improving it? Also, what should i do with regard to adding additional sources for same?Siddhesh (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Restore

Could you restore Kyron Horman to my userspace? I've started an article on the actual event of his disappearance, so it shouldn't violate BLP1E the way the original article did. I'd like to see if there was any usable information in the original article that I can nab. The original article was deleted back in July, and I've created a redirect over it, so hopefully the previously deleted version is still available somewhere. Also, check your email when you get a chance... Thanks SnottyWong spill the beans 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I just email you the text of the old article, rather than restoring it? Shame on me for not immediately acknowledging your email--I've skimmed it, but probably won't get a chance to respond in detail until this weekend. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, emailing the old article is fine. No rush on the other email, just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. Thanks! SnottyWong confess 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

List

Hi! I saw you were involved with a previous nomination for deletion of List of suicides in fiction, and felt you should be informed of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (3rd nomination). Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to you for canvassing appropriately: it's pretty obvious I wouldn't support your nomination, since I took the keep side last time. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! There's nothing that bothers me more than biased canvassing, it really messes things up. Also, I qualified some of my criticisms in regards to notability in the intro of the AfD, in case you care. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

revdel

Hey, thanks for quickly removing that email address. I followed your advice and suggested the editor get in touch with OTRS. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions

I have a few questions:

  1. Do you think a 5.5 hour straw poll is sufficient to determine whether something should be included or not?
  2. Do you think that "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." is compatible with the exclusion of aspects that cover a quarter of the articles content?

-- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

1. The time of a poll isn't particularly relevant, the current consensus is. A "straw poll" like that is only closed once people have stopped responding, so if the consensus changed back again, the material could be included again... if that was the only thing keeping it out.
2. The Family Research Council has a 27+ year history of involvement in American politics. The fundamental problem with the article is that entire controversy is UNDUEly represented in the first place. If you examine the comparisons on articles between universally acknowledged hate groups and the FRC, you'll find them pretty damning. Why spend all the article talking about it in the first place? Recentism, unfortunately. The first 22+ years of the FRC's existence get short shrift; from the article as it is now, our readers would be under the impression that the hate group designation was what had catapulted the FRC into the spotlight, when such is clearly not the case.
Thus, the options per UNDUE and NPOV are to substantially expand the coverage of other FRC activities such that the lead can be expanded around the previous wording without becoming NPOV, or to remove it from the lead. Either is fine with me--which do you prefer? Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rocky Aoki

Dear Jclemens,

I'm new to editing anything on Wikipedia, so am not sure this will reach you, especially since I'm not certain how to send this when done. Anyway...

On Jan. 18 I made a number of corrections to a highly fictional account of Rocky Aoki, who was a teammate and friend whom I knew well. The next day, according to the history, you apparently removed my corrections and annotations. I don't understand why you would do that, at least without contacting me and questioning my sources, that is, those still living who can substantiate my corrections. Rocky had numerous real achievements in his life, but it always galled me that he could smilingly accept encomiums, for instance during an introduction at a sporting event, that he knew to be untrue.

I guess before going further it makes sense to find out if this will even come to your attention, or if I'll know how to access any answer you may be willing to undertake. For all I know my edits were removed for some formal, rather than substantial reason. I'm not familiar with this process*, but I absolutely know what I'm talking about with regard to the Jan. 18 edit. *I don't even know where on my keyboard to find a "tilde", will sign by copying and pasting.

Buckylena Buckylena (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

On American current keyboards, the tilde is about the "accent grave" at the upper left (just above the Tab). Collect (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The reason your edits were removed, which I certainly consider substantial rather than a formality, is that facts about persons must be sourced--that is, Wikipedia is not to be the publication of reference for e.g. your personal recollections about Mr. Aoki. In all fairness, how can anyone on the Internet tell whether you do, in fact, know Mr. Aoki personally, or might be someone interested in spreading disinformation about him for any number of reasons. While Wikipedia encourages people to write about what they know, we do not expect people to write about what only they know. Does that clarify things? Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lords of the Nine

I thought about mentioning Lords of the Nine Hells the other day in the AFD for Glasya as a possible merge target, but decided against it because I thought the nominator might nominate that one too; when someone did mention "Lords", the nominator confirmed my suspicion. You got to love predictability. (rolls eyes) BOZ (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I wish I got paid to Wikipedia. No, I actually wish I got paid JUST to fix the things I'd like to fix proactively. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Tildes

You seem to have forgotten them here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

A short reply. --Lsorin (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock of User:LouisPhilippeCharles

A recent edit to the article Charlotte Aglaé d'Orléans was made by this anon IP[25]. This anon IP also edited on User:LouisPhilippeCharles sandbox.[26] I thought you should know since you were the Admin that placed the block on LPC. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Noting for the archives that the IP was already blocked for evasion by another administrator. Jclemens (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

{{tb|User_talk:Sadads#AfDs_of_first_resort.3F}}

And again, Sadads (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

With multiple arbitration cases pending, as well as my normal load of activities, I'm not sure how much I'll be able to contribute. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

The Featured Sound Main Page Proposal Voter Barnstar
I was truly humbled by the overwhelming community support for the recent proposal to place featured sounds on the main page. The proposal closed on Tuesday with 57 people in support and only 2 in opposition.

It should take a few weeks for everything to get coded and tested, and once that is done the community will be presented with a mock up to assess on aesthetic appeal.

Finally, I invite all of you to participate in the featured sounds process itself. Whether you're a performer, an uploader, or just come across a sound file you find top quality, and that meets the featured sound criteria, you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Featured sounds is also looking for people to help assess candidates (also at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates.)

Thanks again for such a strong showing of support, and I hope to see you at featured sounds in the future.
Sven Manguard Wha?
Adam Cuerden (talk)
(X! · talk)

A barnstar for voting? Really? Well, OK... Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a big deal for us at FS. Besides, it's half shameless adverting for FS anyways ;) Sven Manguard Wha? 04:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

GAN favour

Jclemens, I'm a competitor in this year's WikiCup. Due to extenuating circumstances, the article I planned to submit to the cup for first-round consideration isn't going to be done in time. In November 2008, you reviewed the album article "Weird Al" Yankovic as part of my Good Article nomination. Since my original article is late to the game, I'm hoping that my work on the album Words Words Words has been sufficient to meet the GA-standard. Would you be willing to look over that article really quickly and tell me if you think it stands a chance at GAN? My second, more involved request, should it meet (or almost meet) muster, would be whether you're willing to take on and expedite the GAN process for me? Thank you for your time, and all your help in the past. — Fourthords | =/\= | 02:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What is your timeline? I may be able to get to it this weekend. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I have through the 26th to have submitted it to the Cup, providing it's been promoted in time. I know this is short notice, and I'm sorry to dump my deadline on your helpfulness; I thought I'd have a different article finished enough for DYK consideration, but my co-collaborator has been plagued with real life and wasn't ready in time. I'm appreciative for any help you can provide. — Fourthords | =/\= | 02:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep looking for a reviewer, then, and I'll see what I can do, but I'm unable to make any guarantees. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Talk page stalker here. A quick glance at the article suggests it's certainly capable of being passed at GAN, depending on the reviewer. The only problem that immediatey jumps out at me is scope - you have almost no information about the actual content of the routine/album/ DVD! It's a CD of a stand up routine but there are songs? Are they all songs? Which are not? What topics does the routine cover? How does the CD differ from the live performance? How is the DVD different from both? These are pretty critical questions and may require significant expansion of the article. Being questions whose answers should be obvious from the primary source, there's no good reason for them being absent. My advice is don't go to GAN until they're fixed; you might wing a careless reviewer who passes you but that's not exactly the spirit of the process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

one source = good, six or more = bad

See Talk:Unite Against Fascism with such comments as They are trivial references which lack notablity. Why don't you add to the Cameron article that he is a supporter of the far left? (when shown multiple major newspaper sources including The Times and AP). While a handful of references have been found in newspapers that call it left-wing, these references are rare considering that thousands of articles have been written about the UAF. Articles are supposed to be written from a neutral perspective. The BNP and EDL wants to portray all its opponents as left-wing, etc., and I am loathe to go along with this On the other hand we do not begin with search for isolated quotes in order to discredit critics of the BNP and EDL The Times does not routinely call UAF and the Conservatives as "left-wing" and "liberal". as opposed to the comment It should be included because it provides useful information from an organization that is well respected in identifying hate groups. Some editors have challenged the description, but we would need sources of comparable repute to refute the description at the RfC on Family Research Council. Collect (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what? I'm still asleep... Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I was pointing out that some editors seem quite inconsistent in what they consider sufficient sources for making strong comments about the topic of an article - in some cases the very same editor finds one source to be of sufficient importance to stress "hate group" in the lede of an article about a group he does not seem to like, and in another, he finds a dozen or more RS sources insufficient to simply say a group is "left wing" when it seems to be a group he does like. This post, however, is about this being a common attitude, and is not about a specific editor, to be sure. It is, however, a commentary on why Wikipedia needs much more consistency in handling editing matters. Collect (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Eh, NPOV is one of the hardest things to get right, because some editors, e.g. KimvdLinde on FRC, just don't see that they have their own POV. It's not at all a stretch of AGF to understand that she genuinely believes that the SPLC's hate group designations are objective reality, rather than partisan labels designed to undermine a political opponent. On the other hand, there are plenty of POV wikilawyers, who will do precisely what you say: argue non-self-consistently whichever way they think will win for their pet POV, and I think we have at least two of those in that article. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Whow, thanks. Anyway, yes, I do have a POV and I know it. However, my and your POV should not be part of the deliberations, reliable sources should be. Your claim that the SPLC hate-group listing is a partisan label is obviously your personal opinion, because I am sure you cannot find reliable sources to back that up. Anyway, I wanted to underscore the point Collect is making. At the FRC article, at one point, two ancient sources (or 10 news sources out of 18,000) were enough to add the liberal label to the SPLC while 9000 out of 21,000 news articles calling the FRC conservative were not enough. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that Google hits are pretty valueless, where does the "10 out of 18,000" come from? I find more than 10 very recent news sources (RS) making that assertion. Not to mention well over a hundred RS books making the statement. I rather think the FRC is "conservative" but that is substantially different from labelling it a "hate group" to be sure - all of which references trace back to a single source. Collect (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Copied from the FRC page: There are 17,000 article mentioning the "Southern Poverty Law Center". Ten add the liberal tag. If we do the same google news archive game with the "Family Research council" and conservative in front, we get almost 9000 hits for the "conservative Family research Council" versus 21,000 in total.The same thing in Google scholar has 104 articles with "conservative Family research Council" versus one for "liberal Southern Poverty Law Center".
As for the hate-group label, dissing the SPLC because it is just one source ignores that it is not about the number of sources but the quality of the sources, and the SPLC is generally considered reliable. See my FBI and scholar references at the FRC page that underscore it. Until now, I have not seen ONE reliable source that refutes the label. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sort of like if a BLP has a cite "John Doe raped twenty women" unless we find a cite which specifically says "John Doe did not rape twenty women" that the contentious claim stands? I regard "liberal", "left", "right" and "conservative" as being a teensy bit less contentious than "hate group" is. The more contentious the claim, the better the source must be. The SPLC is reliable only for its opinions. Collect (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, that brings us back to the RfC, which is not about whether the hate-group listing should be added, but whether the controversy that followed should be mentioned in the lead. As for the source itself, does this mean that we generally cannot add anything to an article when it has only one source?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It means the lede is not the best place to put a contentious opinion from a single source. Collect (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that answer the last question, what about the first? And who is determining that this is a contentious 'opinion'?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the fact that many people say that it is "contentious" elided your notice? Collect (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Many people think that god created the world. That does not make it true and that does not make that we have to rewrite the article about evolution. This is why we have policies and guidelines in place such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc. That many wikipedia editors think it is contentious is irrelevant. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec) You'll notice that I've stayed out of those debates on the talk page--I think they're stupid things to fight over, and "X says Y is Z", or variants thereof, are almost always able to be adapted to cover major opinions of something. We don't describe objective reality, we report what others have said, such that Wikipedia itself has no opinion about whether an organization is a hate group, conservative, liberal, or whatnot. If the debate really needs me to wade in with that opinion, I can. On a not-unrelated note, I think one of the least appreciated essays is WP:ENEMY. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I commend WP:PIECE and WP:KNOW to you. Collect (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Good ones! I likes esp[ecially KNOW, which stated: 'It is not up to editors to "know" anything which is not specifically in sources.'. A major issue at the FRC page. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed! I hadn't actually seen WP:PIECE before, even though I am very familiar with the problem. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Socratic Barnstar
For the discussion of the child policy in Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2 ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 12:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, though I find it even odder to receive a barnstar for things I've written months or years ago than just for supporting a Main Page proposal. I may be old-fashioned--I tend to award barnstars for difficult action done well--but I accept this in the spirit which it is given. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thorwald

He's requesting unblock, and I put on hold per the block message. What justifies an indef BLP block for something that relatively innocuous, on a user with a relatively clean history? Obviously, since you put the OTRS number in it, there's something not immediately evident. If you can't tell me about it publicly, could you at least share it in email? Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good. He reverted BLP material onto the page multiple times. He can be unblocked immediately once he understands and agrees not to do that again--Reverting BLP material onto a page, even when it's been removed by an IP address or a new editor, is the same level of BLP harm as adding it in the first place. I'll note this on his talk page, too. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
... and since his unblock request showed the appropriate amount of clue, I just unblocked him myself. Thanks for hopping on that while I was offline! Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Jclemens,
"There is no such thing as inherent non-notability" Absolutey 100% correct, there isn't, there isn't even a policy or a guidelilne or an essay that suggests it, and I have never once made such a statement or a claim coming even close to it. In fact every statement I have made since my RfA began, including my answers to the questions, point to the very opposite. However, I've been told that I'm not allowed to refute oppose votes - especially those of admins - and/or provide evidence to the contrary. Please take this in good faith, but please also do not take it as an appeal for you to change your opinion. I don't expect you to; with the greatest of respect, how you vote is your prerogative - I'm just correcting the facts that were stated by other participants at the RfA. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, people object to my oppose opinions all the time. I don't know who told you that you couldn't, but a RfA subject who can politely engage and win over an opposer is a credit to the project. Some people can't see the difference between engaging and badgering, though, so they assume that everything is the latter. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nina Burleigh

I saw that you removed labels in the Nina Burleigh article. Please respond to my discussion of this at [27]. Thanks. Drrll (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that here; I've replied there. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Glossu Rabban for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glossu Rabban is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossu Rabban until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

pass-out teh baked goodies

Gold Hat (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks! :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank Diannaa, I got 'em from her ;) Gold Hat (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
nb: this, and this fixed a markup issue in your user page. on teh wikipaeia tehy let anyone write teh code. and it shows. Gold Hat (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
and you need to cut a {{clear}} from the cookie-bling. Gold Hat (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I've dropped it to Semi if you'd like to fix it for me. I'm not sure what I screwed up, but I don't exactly have time to fiddle with it. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't anything you did, it was different pieces of code clashing. Mostly the right-floating awards having tussles with the usual boxes. I fixes some other things while I was here, although I skipped some of the leftover template args; icky stuff. Cheers, Gold Hat (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Always willing to learn

In the recent brouhaha at the ArbCom noticeboard talk page you characterised me as being "chronically incivil". Would you care to expand on your understanding of "incivility", so that I may learn to be more perfect, like you? Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Any definition would probably start with not leaving snarky messages on people's talk pages. I didn't think there was any dispute, Malleus, that you're an intelligent, perceptive and experienced editor, but that you're also a cranky bugger who doesn't see any good reason to hold back on letting the world know when he's not impressed with someone. Am I wrong? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting that this is a "snarky" message? I rather thought of it as a serious question. Has it ever occurred to the self-righteous that accusing others of incivility is itself incivil? Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I think the "like you" was the bit that tipped it over the edge. See, without that, it's impossible to tell a sincere question from a deeply sarcastic one. But in any case Jclemens is perfectly capable of defending himself; I'll leave him to it. All of the above is intended in the spirit of good natured but serious banter; if you're genuinely offended by any of it please feel free to ask me to retract it and I cheerfully will, or just save time by wiping it yourself. Hopefully it's clear that my frustration with your conversational style is balanced by a healthy respect for your lengthy experience in improving the project. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You know, Malleus, I don't care to. Suffice it to say that regardless of your own self-opinion, others find you unnecessarily abrasive. I halfway expected to get called on that characterization, but none save you have complained. I've long since come to the conclusion that you simply march to the beat of a different drummer, and that you will never improve the tone of your interactions with other editors until you become personally convinced of the value of doing so. You can pose this as a frame-of-reference issue: what you call "normal", most of the rest of the 'pedia sees as needlessly abrasive, and what we see as normal, you see as... I dunno, insufficiently honest or straightforward? You tell me. If you want my assurance that I'm speaking as an individual, and not representing anyone else in doing so, you have it, BTW. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I didn't think that you would, or would be able to. Malleus Fatuorum 04:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you actually trying to be extra uncivil, just for the irony? —SW— prattle 04:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm pointing out to anyone with eyes to see it the inherent dishonesty here. Clearly that doesn't include you though. Malleus Fatuorum 04:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Just checking. —SW— spill the beans 14:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 09:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Will channel discussions be logged and posted somewhere for folks who don't have IRC? I'm thinking I may or may not join, since I do use IRC, but not terribly frequently. Thanks for the note, though. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Xeno motion

Re: "We are not a court, where a permanent injunction vs. a temporary restraining order is a meaningful differentiation" It's not about some legalistic difference, it's about the person's psychological response. Toning down the wording pending the full process reduces the perceived stigma on the person, so IMO the motion is a good idea. It's more compassionate that way. I left a similar note to Coren. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I can neither give you a meaningful response nor expect you to comprehend a cryptic one based on the non-public discussions in the case. Suffice it to say that if I thought that was a viable goal, since it's certainly a worthwhile one, I would support it. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

One character, one article

(From here)


So, do you have any suggestions with this issue outside of Transformers articles? Like how Wikipedia has separate articles forthe TV series version of Temperance Brennan and her book series counterpart or Yuusuke Godai and Yuusuke Onodera? NotARealWord (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS —SW— chatter 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think those all ought to be merged, yes. Even when a character has very different manifestations, those should be covered in a single article, not in a series of related articles. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Note, however, that since I'm neither a domain expert nor do I have time to become one and/or do the merge, I have absolutely no intention of proposing such a merger, and wouldn't recommend that anyone else do so unless they're willing to help fix the issues they raise. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

pro forma

You are quite indirectly mentioned wrt a WQA complaint about Screwball23 at WP:WQA. You might possibly recall the editor. Collect (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to actually quote me by username next time, so I don't have to go hunting for me. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you will find yourself easily as "Collect's lackey" and for your specific warning to Screwball about his editing style on BLPs in general. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, well I'm far from the most popular person on Wikipedia--less so since I've been cleaning up BLPs for OTRS, for that matter. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We all must do what needs to be done - popularity is not the goal in my opinion. Jimbo definitely notices editors who try to do the right thing on WP for sure, especially on BLPs. At least, I think so. Collect (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Jclemens. A little belatedly, but I would like to thank you for having changed your !vote on my RfA. All positive criticisms and advice have been taken on board and I'm sure you'll not have any cause to worry about my use of the tools, and I look forward to working with you as fellow admins. --Kudpung (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Good luck with the bit. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Game designers

Do you have any sources that can improve the articles for Marcelo Del Debbio, Paul Drye, Marco Donadoni, Pete Fenlon, Joseph Goodman, Geoffrey C. Grabowski, Andrew Greenberg, Rob Heinsoo, Steve Henderson (game designer), Shane Lacy Hensley, Gary Holian, ‎Paul Hume (game designer), Jeff Koke, Christopher Kubasik, Lenard Lakofka, Scott Leaton, Chris Wiese, Ken Lightner, Clinton R. Nixon, ‎Mark Rein•Hagen, or ‎Marcus Rowland (author)? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ergh, probably not. Of those, Fenlon is the only one I'm immediately familiar with, though several of the others look familiar to me. What Wikipedia really needs is a searchable archive of the now-obscure RS from the industry. Somewhere, I have a few issues of ADQ, Space Gamer (doesn't even appear to have an article), and the like. There's plenty of Dungeon and Dragon around, but those mostly covered D&D and other closely associated products. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
You're looking for The Space Gamer. :) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, right. Well, redirects are cheap, and now one exists. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
So far, more than half of these guys appear worthy of at least a deletion discussion. Google appears more than sufficient to source most of these, but there's not a whole lot of good precedents on whether this level of sourcing is sufficient for notability. No reason someone else couldn't be doing this, of course. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts! History shows that when a PROD is removed from one of these, the nominator sends it to AFD, so you may just be right about that. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind taking over after Lakofka? I haven't really the time to mess with more. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I don't know if I'll find the time to work on these. I'll probably just redirect the remaining ones on Thursday or Friday. Most of the ones you de-PRODded were left alone, but it looks like Fenlon and Heinsoo went to AFD. The nominator has been quiet since last Friday; no new nominations. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently the nominator disagrees with the de-PROD-ding after all: Koke and Kubasik are now at AFD as well. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, J. I'm aware of this situation, and have asked User:Paul Erik to help out with sourcing. He's been able to help out in spots, because he has access to a library database of newspaper articles. I'm not the best at finding sources, and usually wind up grasping at straws.  :) I would also add that I restored Ann Dupuis to work on it, and the same editor jumped on that one and sent it straight to AFD as well. I was also thinking of working on this, but now I think I'd rather not waste my time. BOZ (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Kehrli 2

Hi Jclemens. I noted that you voted for most of the other proposals in the abovementioned case, but you failed to vote on this one. As it is the sole remaining non-passing proposal, do you think you could do that at your earliest convenience? Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

D'oh, oversight on my part, now fixed. Clerk away! Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Rating Schemes

Jimbo doesn't like me posting on his talk page, and it's not worth annoying him over this (even if I am an award-winning expert). But, regarding your suggestion "any user could be free to use or not use any one of the myriad of rating schemes" - You have re-invented PICS! (derided as "Platform for Internet Censorship System"). I suggesting reading the "The Net Labelling Delusion" to understand why this is a bad and practically unworkable idea. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Juneau-Douglas High School

Glad to see that there are people paying attention. Unfortunately, your edits made the recentism issue worse, not better. I dunno if anyone in Juneau has ever written or published a history of its public schools. However, since the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District has published multiple editions of such over the years, I would have to guess, yes, seeing that Juneau is roughly the same size.

I'll see if I can find anything. Dominating this page with mentions of "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is much like dominating any Alaskan-related page with mentions of Sarah Palin, whether or not they belong (and there are tons of examples of that out there).RadioKAOS (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've had a chance to follow the links, I agree the Bong Hits 4 Jesus bit is too large--the underlying article is a GA candidate, it seems. However, the "recentism" tag is generally not used for things that span back a decade or more--I thought I was remedying your objection when I deleted some of the more recent and ephemeral sports results. Feel free to trim the court case to just a summary, rather than a blow-by-blow. Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The article RNA Automation has been deleted

21:57, 29 October 2010 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "RNA Automation" ‎ (concern was: No independent sources which establish notability.) Hello there, could you please explain more about 'no independent sources which establish notability'. Where can I find deleted article and how to improve it? I am looking at the similar pages 'ABB Group', and 'Festo'. Thanks --Yingz (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the article for improvement. Note that in the future I'll get to your requests more rapidly if you link to the deleted article--and truncating the "PROD" from the deletion message didn't help, either. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


Pentoo

Yes I'm here because you deleted a page, Pentoo. Reason given "concern was: No evidence at all of notability". so I set about understanding how notability scored within Wikipedia.

"This process is pretty straightforward: Someone tags a page with a freeform reason it should be deleted, and if no one else removes the tag, seven days later it shows up on a list of uncontested, expired "prods", at which time it is generally deleted by whichever admin happens to patrol through the list of expired prods. Sometimes, I will not delete a prod, based on my personal knowledge, or because the reason just isn't a good reason to delete it. Articles which have been prod-tagged and de-tagged aren't eligible for prod, nor are articles which have survived".

Hmm okay so if i choose to tag List_of_locations_in_Babylon_5 and no one responds this nugget of information (and at this point i'd like to understand where this fits in your diagram above) will disappear?

The problem with this system, and I specifically ask you as you're also listed as a Spanish speaker, is how can the english version be deleted whilst the spanish version is fine?

In reference to Pentoo's so called 'lack of notability' I trolled my way through Wikipedia's actual requirements for notability and noticed a number of things.

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability."

Does this mean online only? Shmoocon, Defcon and Blackhat are some of the biggest hacker conventions around and all have some reference to Pentoo as well as many mentions given during talks. True backtrack seems to be the most popular tool these days but it has commercial backing. Here is an alternative for those man enough to use Gentoo and wow you can actually upgrade from the first version to the current without a reinstall.

Personally I, and many other security professionals I know, prefer Pentoo. It is fast, stable and more bleeding edge that other distributions and can actually use CUDA.

I know there are people currently rewriting the article for resubmission but find it really hard to swallow that this was deleted because some random individual decided it had no references and no-one responded it did within seven days.

I think I'll spend the weekend trolling through wikipedia articles tagging all those I feel don't fit your wedge above and see how many I can delete. Understand I am not unhappy with you per se but feel someone with experience in the security industry might have been better suited to deciding on the relevance of this article.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.18.30 (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to actually read the essays linked at the top of this page if you'd like a productive response out of me. Oh, and note there's someone else on the page who did read the directions, asked for their article back, and got it restored in short order. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

Hello - I came to thank you for removing vandalism to the above article - as if it was my page! - and am now worried this would sound fawning? I suppose I can ask your advice? I have taken the page on as a sort of pet-project: the synopsis seems to be a target for vandalism and I don't particularly like it as it seems uneccasary to me, plus as one commenter pointed out, it seems longer than the book itself (haven't counted, but the book was 225 words long - :( removed that nugget because it seemed to not fit in the head section or anywhere else, ruthless woman that I am). The synopsis might be worth removing but it has been popular and re-instated several times after being removed by others. Any ideas? Cheers! Kathybramley (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking for help isn't fawning. In fact, I should probably take that off of the top of the page, since it happens vanishingly rarely, but I digress. So, on to your question: in my opinion, text should stay or go based on how valuable it is, rather than how often it is vandalized. While we don't have a way to see which parts of an article are read, I think it's pretty safe to assume that everyone arriving at the book's Wikipedia article is expecting to see some sort of a synopsis, so I would recommend against removing it entirely. Having said that, there's no reason it can't be made more succinct. When I'm editing things down, I usually take multiple passes, each time asking of each piece of information "is this necessary?", and each time removing a bit more information while focusing on what I believe to be the core parts that any reader would expect to find in an encyclopedia article. Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Superman (film project)

This is just a notice that Superman (film project) is being proposed for deletion. The discussion can be found here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Commented. Do make sure you follow the expectations of WP:CANVASS in your notifications--I haven't checked, so this is just a blind reminder. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Huggle oops

Sorry about that. That wasn't in the Huggle window when I did it (or at least I don't remember seeing it). ScottyBerg (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No biggie, with Huggle it's hard to not to move too fast sometimes. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually there's no way, using Huggle, that you can see if the old version had preexisting vandalism. However, I notice that the software won't revert to a version from the same IP range, but in this case it reverted back to another vandal's version. That's hard to guard against. In fact it could have happened with a simple undo or by a bot, come to think of it. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't bring it up to ding you on it, so much as to inform you of it. If this is a systemic defect of huggle, then maybe we need to ask for better tools to handle tag-team vandalism... Vandals already know well that e.g. Rollback won't be as effective if two IPs edit rapidly. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I totally realize it was just an fyi note. I guess it definitely is a limitation of Huggle, but I wonder how much vandalism is attributable to coordinated teams of vandals? I have gotten the impression that most vandalism I see is spontaneous stuff by kids. Coordinated vandalism has to be dealt with manually, methinks. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about how many vandals know this and do it intentionally, but it seems to be that "complicated" vandalism falls mostly into either sneaky or tag-team categories. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Incubation project

I know you've been interested in the Incubation project in the past. If you're not too busy reaping miscreants as a hotsy-totsy arbitrator these days (), you might want to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#Use_of_incubation_outside_stated_guidelines. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Desysop

As an arbcom member, have you ever been in a case where someone has been desysopped? If so, how many since Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship was updated?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've only been an ArbCom member since 1 January, and since that time I know of one that has not been finally dispositioned that is not reflected on that page. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1960–1961 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

Can you restore the PROD based 1960–1961 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I will, but WP:NOTTVGUIDE almost certainly applies. You want to merge it somewhere or something? Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems it was requested because someone in this AfD mentioned that, should the result be "Keep all", that article should be restored. Of course, that doesn't really matter now that it was restored anyway, I guess.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I do have to ask though: should the outcome of that AfD turn out to be delete for whatever reason, that specific article would have to be renominated separately, right? Including it in the bunch seems logical for obvious reasons, but I'm sure there's red tape to work around (which is why I assume the editor who first mentioned it asked that it be restored depending on the outcome rather than just right away). Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why anyone would object to it being bundled late. Since a PROD could be undeleted at any time, it'll actually add some finality (well, as much as anything is ever final...) to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

AmIRC and XiRCON

Please userfy AmIRC, Talk:AmIRC, XiRCON, and Talk:XiRCON to my userspace. Thanks! --Tothwolf (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Did you realized you'd db-u1'ed the latter two? Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I db-u1'ed everything within my userspace except my monobook settings when this was happening (more background). --Tothwolf (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Import a Kiwix article Backup

Hi,

I hope you Kiwix remember an article removed. You think you can recover the deleted version?. I think that now can be included.

Thank you very much --Wilfredor (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Feel free to make your improvements now. Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

more eyes

Based upon recent discussions in several places, I have begun work on an essay that seeks to clarify just how and when discussuion of a film-before-its-filming would per policy merit inclusion in some manner, or per GNG even merit a seperate article. Please look over User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films and offer your insights. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:NFF actually is the better candidate to rewrite. SNGs are additive with the GNG. If there's something that passes the GNG that should actually be excluded, WP:NOT is the place for it. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree... but felt that clarity needs to begin someplace. Might you wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Future films#Proposed ammendment to section on Process#Notability Your comments toward my idea is quite welcome. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A small wikifavor

I'd like some uninvolved admin eyes on this talk page. While my experience with the editor hasn't always been pleasant, the notification activity occurring after March 19th and continuing today is starting to smell like harassment, or at least share some appearances with such. The editor seems convinced he's being harassed. All this my opinion, and I'd like another. Do you mind reading a bit? BusterD (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on image policy by any means, but what SchuminWeb is calling personal attacks seem relatively mild, and the aggrieved person is really not the best one to be making the call on what is or is not a personal attack. At the same time, there appears to be widespread violation of WP:DTTR, which is not itself a policy, but more a conduct recommendation. With a 5 minute review of the facts, I don't see anything SchuminWeb's done that's outright wrong, but I see a lot of things where additional politeness and AGF on both sides would help the situation. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I agree that both users could be more civil. BusterD (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Bold text

Please check [28]. Thanks. Jabrol (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for letting me know; looks like it already got cleaned up. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of prodded article that was contested

Hi there. I just noticed that in April 2010 you deleted Fosh (baseball) (see Special:Undelete/Fosh (baseball)) as a result of a prod. The prod was added in this edit, and was removed in the subsequent edit. Someone was either unaware of or ignored the prod policy (specifically WP:CONTESTED), and restored the prod notice. You then deleted the article. The prod notice should never have been restored to the article; for the article to be deleted, it should have gone through the usual AfD.

Can you please review your decision. (I'm assuming you simply forgot to peruse the article's history before deletion.) Mindmatrix 02:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "forget"--I don't routinely review article histories when doing PRODs, because it's such a low percentage operation. All one has to do to get a PROD back is ask, so there's no presumption of finality at all with a PROD deletion. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The deleted revisions now appear underneath the existing article. You may want to integrate the older content with the newly recreated article. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I've significantly modified the article using that content as a starting point. Mindmatrix 16:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
As an admin, I don't think an article should be deleted without proper checks. WP:PROD states in the "Deleting" section that admins "should check the article, its history, and deletion log", and point 3 specifically mentions confirming that the article was "never previously proposed for deletion". Anyway, the point is moot now. Thanks for restoring it. Mindmatrix 16:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a balance between pragmatism and speed. When 95+% of expired PRODs have never been PRODded before, there's not a high return on the effort involved to find the edge case like this one. Since I only have a finite amount of time to spend on Wikipedia each day, I'm willing to accept that error rate in order to spend more time on other things. PRODs are the only things I do that with, because they have an inherent double-check in that there's a week for someone, anyone, to object AND there's no permanent consequence to an inappropriate PROD deletion. I DO see the deletion log, so if something has actually ever been deleted, I won't delete it again via PROD. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Who decides most things on Wikipedia?

Who defines what is odious? [Jovially. ] C'mon little arb, you know is Bishzilla, don't you? Little arb make little joke! [Bishzilla sticks the petrified little arb in her pocket and pats him down firmly. ] bishzilla ROARR!! 19:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

Heh. Thanks, Bish. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree With You

I was completely surprised that the only thing people looked at in the deletion debate was WP:NHOCKEY, not looking at all the sources that existed on Google for the guy before immediately dismissing the article. Granted some of the sources are from the Sting's own Web site (who else do you expect to report on a player?) and from the OHL, but if they have a problem with those sources they are easily replaceable and there is enough coverage to warrant the article. The first two "endorsements" of the deletion equally caught me off guard. CycloneGU (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut's ban

Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use reminders Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this fresh statement Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please restore Floorlords article/bio

Hello, I was interested in finding out more about one of drummer Chuck Biscuits' early bands, The Floorlords (formerly located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Floorlords&action=edit&redlink=1). I was disappointed to see the article was deleted. Could you please consider restoring this article/band biography? Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.214.64 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it, and there's nothing about it that meets the notability expectations of WP:BAND: it claims the band released only one single before self-destructing, and doesn't assert that that single charted anywhere. Not every early band is notable and deserves its own article. Indeed, it would seem much more appropriate to include what is encyclopedic about the band in Biscuits' own article, since none of the other members of the band appear to have ever done anything notable. Of course, the article was deleted two years ago and things may have radically changed, but that's what I see, based on the review of the article as it was deleted. I can make a copy of the article in user space for you to work on. Would that be helpful? Jclemens (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Alexis Fields

Hello, Jclemens. On the subject of the Alexis Fields article. Since you closed the my last deletion review argument on the subject of the article: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 5. I am coming to you because you seem the most understanding of my predicament. Yesterday, I contacted Ms. Fields herself through Twitter, she gave me permission to re-create the page and I even asked to make her own suggestions in my userspace for her: User:QuasyBoy/Alexis Fields. Other than two minor edits, she said the page was fine. Here are the series of tweets I shared with her: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] I have tried to find other so-called "appropriate" sources for the actress, but to no avail. This one of those cases where biographical information is difficult to find, there are certainly a number of other Wikipedia bios of so called not very popular actors like Ms. Fields with this same problem. Basically, what I am saying is, I don't know what else to do on this subject. QuasyBoy 04:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I would suggest:
  • For the notable performances she's been in, at the very least get a cast list from somewhere that documents her presence. RS if possible, promotional/primary is acceptable if no one else lists her. I added one for you I found using Google News Archive--there appear to be any number of others, some of which are pay per view.
  • Try and find review material on those works which mention her, for good or ill, and construct a "reception" section.
The lack of substantiation for the details of her personal life isn't super relevant, so long as there's enough material to establish that she's met either the WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I will try that. :) QuasyBoy 05:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I added three more sources from Google Books. Some of them are pretty redundant info, But I guess in this case that's OK. QuasyBoy 05:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I took your suggestions and the page looks even better now, I think. It good enough to move out of userspace now? QuasyBoy 06:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks somewhat better... but I really don't know whether I'd call it good enough or not. If you can find enough reviews which comment on her to make a reception section, then I would definitely move it back to mainspace. For now... eh, it might get G4'ed again, even with the improvements, and that doesn't help anyone. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not familiar with "reception" sections in biographies for actors, at least as long as I have been editing on this site. Generally that is for articles on music (albums/songs), films and television series. Also, I'm sure the article will not get G4'd if are vouching also considering that this version of the article is the MOST improved on the subject. You have been very helpful than any other administrator in my process of re-creation. QuasyBoy 18:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
True... for actors, it's often an "awards" section... but she doesn't have any awards, does she? How, without such a section, do you intend to establish notability? Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Dang, no awards or nominations. I guess that's problem, huh. QuasyBoy 21:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you need to be able to articulate how she meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. I think the second is easier than the first, since she has recurring roles in multiple shows. Be sure to make sure that anyone who reads just the lead can see that there's a sourced claim of notability there. That should help stave off G4, even if they want to take the article back to AfD. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
That was my argument before in the deletion review. She basically meets the fist rule in WP:ENTERTAINER. Ms. Fields only Achilles' heel is that she has never had regular role in an actual series. Her situation is not too different from another actress Emmanuelle Vaugier, she had recurring roles in multiple series, but never a regular role thus far in her career. Only difference is, she has starred in more notable films and has made Maxim Hot 100 lists. QuasyBoy 22:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Theatre Project collaboration

Thanks for the invitation, but I doubt I'll have time to participate. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please restore Ideal firm size, deleted as a "PROD"

You said you don't want a detailed explanation, so I won't give one, unless you request it. StuRat (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored, feel free to work on the concerns expressed in the original PROD request. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. StuRat (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please reinstate the article on Matt's Script Archive

I was disappointed to see that the article on Matt's Script Archive had been deleted. This website was instrumental in helping many people like myself find out how to create interactive web pages using Perl CGI scripts prior to the advent of PHP. It was a hugely popular, and I would argue important, website back in the late '90s. I'd always wondered who Matt Wright was and what made him start up this free resource for budding Web designers like myself, back in the days when most websites consisted of completely static HTML pages. However, it was not until today that I'd got round to looking this up, and Wikipedia was my natural first port of call.

I don't have any connection to Matt Wright or his script archive (which I haven't used, or even looked for, in years), and I've never seen the article that you deleted. I just know that this website was hugely influential in the spread of Perl as the server-side language of the Web for a few years prior to PHP and ASP, and long before Ruby. Personally I think this website deserves a page in the history of Web programming - if only to talk about how open to exploit some of those scripts were (including, I remember, early versions of the Matt Wright's widely used FormMail.pl script).

I'd appreciate it if you could consider reinstating this article. Thanks. Itauthor (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Please go ahead and see if you can add references or otherwise improve that article. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - Alistair Christie (ITauthor) 05:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itauthor (talk • contribs)

Email sent

I've sent email. Thanks for your post to my page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And I've replied. Sorry for the delay! Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuzana Light

Hi. I'd like to restore the Zuzana Light entry, in light of the fact that CBSNews.com has named her the #1 fitness trainer on YouTube [36]. Is that okay with you? Sorry, I am still new at this, and don't make many contributions. Thanks. SLOW93 (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)SLOW93

Sure--provided you don't use an unencyclopedic and objectifying voice (e.g., calling her a "hottie"), I have no objection to your recreating the article. You may want to make a draft in your user space first, though. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

About my request. Clarification or Amendment?

I'd rather not answer more there, I've already said way too much. This is a request to have two bans lifted, as was stated in bold. These bans were not Arbcomm-declared. The Pcarbonn ban was a "community ban" but it was allegedly based on a prior ban that was served out. That was the Cold fusion arbitration, I added this because the way in which the ban arose was very similar, similar behavior (banned user activity confined to suggesting changes or sources in Talk, allegations of "the same POV that got him banned" or the like), the same complainant, previously found to be tendentious and involved as an admin.

The clear and specific request I filed was for the more recent ban, under General Sanctions on Cold fusion to be lifted. The Pcarbonn ban might be considered to be such, it was after the subject case, but it wasn't declared as a GS ban, GS was ignored in the request, as it was in the recent request about me. AN would probably not have been the place to request a GS ban.

I was not requesting modification of any ArbComm decision, which is why Amendment made no sense to me. This was ban appeal, based on General Sanctions, complicated by a judgment of "return to prior behavior," and I wasn't sure where to put it. I was not asking for ArbComm to change any prior decision.

The ban was declared by GWH, as described. He suggested appeal to ArbComm, and pointed to the enforcement GS finding, which pointed to AE. That was the reasonable other choice, but the page description as now live didn't mention the lifting of bans.

Since I believe that my behavior was quite different from prior behavior -- no revert warring at all, nothing even remotely close to it, no anticipated controversial editing of the article, no reverts, etc., no extensive dispute resolution process all over the place -- the issue would be one of clarification, of what behavior I should avoid. I had imagined my behavior to be within what is allowed, particularly for a COI editor, who is expected to have a POV, but who is allowed to suggest or discuss even controversial changes in Talk.

Thanks for your interest. --Abd (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)

Hi Jclemens. You participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Phyrexia

Hi. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia, community consensus (as expressed by all editors who participated in the discussion except for you and Hobit) was that the article Phyrexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be deleted rather than merged. Nonetheless, after the discussion was closed as "delete" by Wizardman, you restored the article's history with the rationale: "restoring under redirect to expand into merge target". I don't object to the redirect, but the restoration of the article's history is contary to consensus as established in the AfD discussion. As I assume you know, if you disagree with the closing administrator's finding of consensus, you can challenge it at WP:DRV. I would therefore like to ask you to comply with the AfD's consensus outcome and re-delete the article's history. Regards,  Sandstein  06:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to walk you through the process. "New Phyrexia" is a major Magic: the Gathering product offering from Wizards of the Coast. It's launching in a couple of weeks (product release info here. The bare outcome of the AfD would have left Phyrexia a redlink, which is silly, given the relative coverage of other Magic information and the impending product release. No problem, since a merge target was identified in the AfD (and not by me, I might add; my solution favors a wholesale merging of subordinate articles which wasn't taken up by anyone in the AfD)--I'll just create it and have done with it. Only, this version of Plane (Magic: The Gathering), has nothing but a link to the now-deleted article. So what to do? If I just crib the content from the deleted article, that would be a license violation. So, I undeleted the former revisions underneath the redirect, to comply with the licensing, and merged about two sentences from the lead of the now-deleted article into the target: adhering to appropriate licensing has precedence over procedure. I also added a bit of new content on my own, along with two refs: one primary (Wizards') and one secondary (MTV Geek). And, to make sure that what I did wouldn't enable some random drive-by undoing, I semi-protected the redirect for a month.
However, even if the restoration wasn't required by licensing, the AfD concerns you enumerated have all been eliminated: V is met, N is not a factor for content in a larger article (and can probably be met anyways), all the GAMEGUIDE stuff is gone from the merged content, and the material now in the merge target has been sourced. I trust you're happy that the encyclopedia has been appropriately improved in a way that complies with licensing requirements. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks for explaining why you undeleted the history out of process, although I in your place would not have done so. I would not have merged the sentence "It is often called the final Hell for artifacts, or simply The Nine Hells", which seems to be the only text you merged. Not only is the sentence still(!) unsourced, but it is also poor encyclopedic writing, since it seems to adopt an in-universe point of view (real people do not "often" call Phyrexia "The Nine Hells", they call it a fictional world) and the cringe-worthy "is often called" calls for a {{by whom}} template. Finally, your merger edit did not include a wikilink to the source article, as it would have been required to for attribution. I have deleted the deficient sentence (supplying the lacking wikilink in the process) and, since attribution is now no longer required, re-deleted the history of the source article per WP:CSD#G4. I suggest that it would be better to re-write any substantial content about Phyrexia from scratch in the "Planes" article, citing sources as one writes, rather than copying unsourced scraps from the deleted article.  Sandstein  08:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that's a poor summary for Phyrexia anyhow. Instead, I would say something about it being the mechanized realm created by Yawgmoth, which is a key setting for many MTG expansions including Antiquities and the Invasion block, and several MTG novels (which I've never read), and that it is alluded to in many other sets through the entire Weatherlight series and apparently in the upcoming New Phyrexia set. The old Phyrexia article did a pretty good job laying it out, and was correct as far as I can tell. This is probably the second most important plane in the MTG fantasy universe, and I think it would be much easier to cite the propositions in the old article than rewrite it from scratch. Therefore, would you mind undeleting it and moving it to my userspace, Sandstein? I would bring it up to code, then ask you to restore it to article space (or through DRV if you are unavailable). Cool Hand Luke 13:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Sandstein, I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear that I wasn't done merging that content--that was simply all that I had the time to source and integrate before I left for a brief road trip. Since Cool Hand Luke has offered to continue working on improving the new target, I'll defer to him on fixing up the merged content, since he appears to be more familiar with Magic: the Gathering than I. Thanks for pointing out the deficiency in my edit summary; I should have known that, but didn't. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I note that you've recently merged Ravnica in essentially the same way, save the AfD, that I merged Phyrexia. Is there a particular problem of Ravnica vs. Phyrexia such that you see a disparity in the outcome as a proper thing? Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes; Ravnica had a source (if only primary ones: the novels and the manufacturer's webpage), which made the content minimally verifiable and thus mergeable.  Sandstein  08:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Sandstein, I would consider the nominator of a page for deletion as "involved", i.e. having an opinion on it, and hence one shouldn't be performing admin actions (redeleting in this case) with respect to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I hadn't considered that making a G4 deletion would be controversial, but I guess you are right that it would have been better from a procedural point of view if I had made a speedy deletion request instead of re-deleting the history myself. Though I suppose the same applies to Jclemens's undeletion and partial merging of the article after he argued at length for that outcome in the AfD.  Sandstein  11:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe call it quits, neither of you does anything more with this particular deleted/undeleted/redeleted content (rewrites being a different matter) and both of you being that tad more careful about the appearance of things in the future.....? Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC) ETA it's very easy to miss that you're involved/out of process when what you want to do seems obvious, I've done it myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay - maybe the take-home message is a general one that closing admins should be more specific with review of consensus i.e. is the term a valid search term etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to mandate closing administrators do anything. The reason I didn't bug Wizardman in the first place is that his analysis of the situation, if any, was pretty opaque ("the result was delete"). "Delete" simply means that the article isn't allowed to exist as a standalone article. I think you'd see a lot fewer admins closing AfDs if they were responsible for cleaning up after the implementation, but I'm not sure that's a particularly bad thing: if we're reaching the point where maintenance is more important than content creation, it seems only logical that it should be an increasingly important part of information removal as well. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw this discussion linked from WT:Articles for deletion#"Involved" status of nominator. This has similarities with Conquest X-30 and H.I.S.S., which I listed at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21. I have been planning to start a discussion at WT:Articles for deletion regarding what process is appropriate before restoring articles for merging. I think that it doesn't need an RfC for two disputes. Does anyone (particularly Jclemens or Sandstein) have input? Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I catch up, I'll comment there. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, I won't. If anyone wants my opinions on the topic, they can come here and participate in this discussion, rather than conducting a discussion on my actions in abstentia and without benefit of any input from me. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, then I'll ask the question here instead: why did you use your administrative tools to obtain a "merge" result for the article when the AFD had a clear consensus for deletion, you had participated in the AFD requesting a merge, and that option was negated by the results of the discussion? Why couldn't you just write the two sentences from scratch, thus obeying procedure and abiding by consensus?—Kww(talk) 01:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Most of this question is answered above; to summarize: it was the most straightforward way to balance the concerns endorsed in the AfD with the appropriate provision of encyclopedic content. Deleted content can (and should) be restored whenever the concerns of an AfD have been addressed, as I described above. DRV wasn't appropriate, because I didn't dispute the reasons for not retaining the article as a standalone article. Had I to do it again, I would have userified it first, and then done the histmerge under the redirect once it was clear that everything had been appropriately sourced. As was, you'll note that I semi-protected the redirect, so that no one could anonymously undo the AfD consensus (that the article not be a standalone article) while I built the content in the target article. I suppose I could have DRV'ed the result, but I didn't disagree with the article's ceasing to exist as a separate article, nor with the opinion that it should not be merged until sourced and that much of the content was excessive detail for a fictional topic. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing: when there's no assertion of copyvio, BLP/attack, or promotion (as there wasn't in this case), merging from the deleted revisions limits deleted article repair to only administrators for no good reason. I know plenty of non-administrators who are perfectly capable of picking out tidbits from an article history, sourcing them, and merging those bits appropriately. While I didn't call this to anyone else's attention in this case, it's entirely possible, given the upcoming M:tG release, that non-administrators could have encountered the redirect and desired to help; this is the flip side of the semiprotection that I set. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC draft: Restoring to merge after deletion at AfD

I have started a draft at User:Flatscan/RfC draft: Restoring to merge after deletion at AfD. You are receiving this notification because you were involved with a past instance. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied on the draft's talk page. What outcome do you hope to achieve here? Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I replied there also. My goal is to reduce the delete-undelete-delete-... cycle by clarifying the expected process. While not quite wheel warring in these cases, there's something wrong when each admin believes that he is obviously correct. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is it appropriate that it be reduced? If content doesn't meet criteria, it gets deleted. If someone's willing to fix it, it gets undeleted and worked on. Expecting finality in a Wiki is probably unrealistic. :-) At any rate, this is especially important for content that was perfectly good but not up to standards: that is, unsourced content that doesn't "hurt" anything. If it's "easy go" (source it or it gets deleted in a week), it needs to be just as easy to get it back.

But, if you're really dedicated to breaking such a cycle, I'd propose this rule: no harm-less article may be deleted if it has a redirect target. That way, the history can be saved so that a non-administrator can go back, see it, and merge whatever good can be salvaged from that article. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that two extra undelete-delete pairs ([37] [38]) should not occur, especially without any discussion between admins. A full AfD is not "easy go", and userfication is easy to request. I disagree with your proposal and think that it would be rejected if presented at WT:Articles for deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_7&oldid=1147965591"