User talk:Jclemens/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Adoption

Hello. I see you are up for adoption. If you want, I can help and possibly mentor you out. I just can't officialy adopt you. I have been at wikipedia for anout three months and I have 2500+ mainspace edits out of my 9000+ edits total. What do you think? Plaese reply on my talkpage.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be glad to. First off, do you mean that most of your edits on articles are reverted/removed?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 05:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not now, no. More than 90% of what I put in is kept--I've managed to figure out how to do that so far on my own. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's actually okay, but I think we can improve that. I am going to check your contributions. In the meantime, try reading some policies located here as it can help. I might be offline soon by the way, but it's unlikely.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 05:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Take your time. I may be headed for bed soon myself, so there's no real sense of urgency here. My next goal is to get whedonesque.com up to GA status, so I've been reading up on that a bit. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Review

First off. I've added the AWB template on your user page just to show your count, total edits, logs, etc. You have a total of 489 edits and 470 undeleted edits. Only 19 of your edits have been deleted/reverted which is a good start. I am proud to see how much you edit in the mainspace and keep that up. I suggest creating more articles. You want to be an admin right? Well it is important if you participate in WP:XFD. I participate in XfD's but more particularly WP:AFD which I consider participating in since your involved in deletion discussions. Other than that, keep up the good work and make sure you make quality edits. Comments? By the way, I suggest not deleting old discussions as you did with a few other discussions. I suggest archiving. When you have the time, I'll set you an archive.-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 15:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the things I care and know enough to write about are already articles, hence my focus on improving existing articles, rather than creating new ones. If the opportunity and need arises, I'm certainly not opposed to creating a new article, but it just hasn't much so far.

I've prod'ed a few articles here and there, and generally had the prods succeed, but am by no means a deletionist. Participating in XFD's for the sake of participating in them isn't too high on my list--what I've advocated deleting has been part of my own good faith effort to improve Wikipedia.

I would archive discussions that had some less ephemeral value--the ones I deleted on this page were mostly conducted elsewhere, which left the fragments here looking orphaned and contextless, hence my deleting them. Is that considered bad form? Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. It's not really bad, it's just a lot better saving any message on your talkpage for future use. And I think it's good your improving articles, but I do suggest creating articles on occasions. Try looking at WP:REQUEST when you have the time as it can give you ideas on what article to write.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 06:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Any questions? -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment, no, thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Chatswong

Why you remove my Chatswong brah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.67.25 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you'll check the page history, another editor has previously removed that slang. If you would like to readd it, I susggest you find a WP:RS to document it. Absent other context, it appears likely to be a racial slur--see WP:Profanity. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

reverted you on Huggle

Just letting you know that your edit happened just as I was reverting an IP here on Huggle. Sorry!:). I was also tagging CSD anyways! Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was a bad edit on my part, so thanks for reverting it. I clicked "OK" but Huggle wasn't picking up that the creator deleted the speedy tag. Today's my first day learning the intricacies of Huggle. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

First day uh! (Unsolicited advice warning) Go slow, or you will have angry traffic jams on your talk page;)Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads up. I think I did OK, but I'm taking a break for several hours to see if any more complaints arise. Any other advice as I try and automate vandal fighting? Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Giving a warning

Hey! Just a quick tip: when you revert vandalism like you did here, you should add a warning to the user talk page of the guy who vandalized the article. Thanks! EliAS 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I usually do leave a warning, not sure why one didn't go through on that revert. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. It's okay then. I just like to remind some users about this, as everyone doesn't know anything about giving warnings. EliAS 19:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you revert my question in the Misc RF? It was a serious one... GoingOnTracks (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You have my sincere apologies. That was clearly an error on my part. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

IP 204.69.139.16

Looking at the edits of 204.69.139.16 (to the article on "suicide") that you reverted, it seems they are restructuring, rather than vandalism. I really lack the expertise to judge whether it's better before or after. In any case it's really important to get that article right, because of this. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize the gravity of the article, and went back and double checked my revert. The edit I reverted simply added five newlines into the article. Unless I'm missing something, the edit added nothing and would have done nothing to change the presentation of the article. The cautionary advice is appreciated, and I'm always open to correction. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not really vandalism by the way. It seems like a test edit, adding 4 spaces to an article. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if the tone of my comments was condescending; I really didn't mean them that way. Anyway I am not the best to watch the article – an expert is needed for that purpose. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't offended, and my apologies if it sounded like I was being defensive. You make a good point about the article, and if I'm not willing to be questioned on my edits, I should keep my nose out of recent changes patrolling and stick to articles that I know well myself. On the topic of suicide itself, I'm not an expert by any means, but one doesn't need to be to judge most diffs that come up. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Be Careful with Rollback

Hello again. I see you've been reverting for a while with rollback and I've noticed your comments on your talk page. Please be very careful with rollback and that it is used for vandalism and vandalism only. It is not used for good faith edits. If misused many times, it will be revoked. Please remember this. Thanks. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep--I'm running about 95-98+% correct anti-vandalism, which I'm striving to improve. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, but try to be 100% accurate. I don't think you would want it taken away. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a bit too modest. I'm running at over 99% accuracy. 100% is the obvious goal, of course, but I shouldn't sell myself short, either. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, just remember that. Are you part of any WikiProjects? -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes... check my userboxes. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal blocking

Ha, it's 10 past 1 in the afternoon here so it's not an odd hour for me. No problem blocking though. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your location from your user page, hence the comment about my hour. It's only 22:15 on the U.S. West Coast, but it's nice to go to bed knowing that the fellow who'd been dorking around with my user page won't be doing anything else to it while I sleep. Thanks and goodnight. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bleh. It's 1:23am here. Just checking my watchlist before bed. If I fire up Huggle, I'll never get to sleep. So I won't. Zzzzzz. :) DarkAudit (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning to me

I was reverting that IP vandal. I think you mistook his edits for mine.--Master of Tetris and Emlith (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct--we were reverting him at the same time, and Huggle notified you inappropriately. I hate friendly fire in rvv'ing! Jclemens (talk)

Stephen Colbert

I noticed that your reverted my edit of Stephen Colbert (character)'s article. The quote I added was not only relevant to the sentence, but was a direct quote from Colbert in character from his appearance on the O'Reilly Factor. The previous entry is not entirly true as he doesn't say outright that his name is French to "get liberals to watch his show." What he ACTUALLY SAYS is "to get the cultural elites on my side." My revision makes this part of the article more correct and this is the second time its been reverted. I've also provided a link to back uo my quote. Please let me know why you reverted this so maybe we can avoid this problem in the future. STiLL DRE (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)STiLL DRE

STiLL DRE, thanks for your polite and positive approach to the matter. I am not a domain expert on most of the changes I review, so I have to look for other clues. In this case, it appears that four separate factors contributed to my decision to revert your changes.

• First, you're using a new account. That's not bad in and of itself, but I only patrol changes made by anonymous users. When you're no longer a new account (the exact date and edit thresholds escape me at the moment), I won't even see changes you make.
• Second, you'd been reverted on that article by another editor. Other editors can make mistakes, too, but that raises my index of suspicion: since I know nothing about the article, the other editor likely knows more, and cannot know less, than I do. Often, vandals will immediately readd any vandalism that has been undone, and I had no basis to distinguish your editing from that.
• Third, your edit lacked an edit summary. Edit summaries are a great chance to explain what you're doing to people who may be looking at your change, but not have all the knowledge of the subject you do. Vandals rarely take the time to provide articulate edit summaries.
• Fourth, you replaced a reference with a lower-quality reference. Links to YouTube are deprecated, compared to links to major news outlets. If you had added a YT reference instead of replacing the Fox News reference, I almost certainly would not have reverted your edit.

So, those four factors led me to believe your edit was substantially more likely to be unhelpful than helpful. If you readd it with an edit summary and without removing the existing reference to Fox News, your likelihood of being reverted by another editor should be minimal. Again, thanks for your contribution and sorry that I mistook it for likely vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

....Okay thanks. As I stated, my account is new so I'm not used to using the edit summary option and linking sources. The first edit I made didn't site a source, so thats why the first revision was made. Also, I was unaware that YouTube was a low-quality reference but it makes sense now that you mention it. I'm happy to learn from mistakes and I will certainly put your advice to use in further edits and revisions that I make. STiLL DRE (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)STiLL DRE

With that attitute, STiLL DRE, you will be a great asset to Wikipedia. I'm still learning things myself, but feel free to ask here for any help. Cheers! Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell

The page itself was in coded format and such, I reverted it to the previous version to correct the error. The photo of him had a top caption that read "his father is Tom Hill." I have no idea where that came from, and I changed it to "Colin Powell." Sbfenian1916 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism tools are pretty much "all or nothing"--I noticed the 'successor' field was vandalized in the resultant page, and reverted it. Please feel free to ignore the automated warning and re-correct any parts of the article that I made wrong again. I think vandals love to team up where any auto-revert reintroduces error. Thanks for your efforts to keep Wikipedia vandalism free! Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions?

I see your doing good. Any questions? --RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. If I run into anything I need your help with, I'll ask. I will need help with the process of developing GA's and FA's, but I don't see that you've got any background in that area. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Regards, RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 17:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Saifgill

Hi, I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your warning from User talk:Saifgill - the text in question was a copyvio, so blanking the page isn't really problematic. It's just about not biting the newbies. Thanks -mattbuck (Talk) 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Acro-yoga

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

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

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

No problem

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

Hamilton Southeastern

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

WTF

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

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

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

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

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

Serenity comics overarticle

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

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

Serenity film edits

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, thanks for responding so quickly. :)

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen Decatur

75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Darren75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC) im the one editing the steven decatur page. if you look at the link provided you will see that in the jersey devil page the 1st encounter was steven decatur. is this site not a viable source???? and sorry if im not doing this right

Hi Darren. Can you include citations from reliable sources to document what you've added? It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between real material and nonsense that vandals add. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

i tried to add them but i guess i dont know how. it appears wrong in the article. if you look up jersey devil a steven decatur you will see everything that it brings up all tell of the same enncounter. i believe it should be here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops--my bad. The instructions are at WP:CITE, not [WP:CITE]. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ok i got it now. thanks. learn something new everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

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

I second that! I had no idea it was possible to vandalize Wikipedia. I thought it was just a popularity contest. I have much more respect for this site now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.249.86 (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that 100% of what I said was true. Just google it. I will come back one day when the history books are written so I can source my assertions.

If it's true, then feel free to add citations to reliable sources. The standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Feather Cave (novel)

Hi, the G3 tag you put on this is perfectly appropriate. I sometimes feel reluctant myself to put a speedy tag on an old article, hence the AFD suggestion. Lately I've been changing speedy tags around if the wrong one has been picked, because I think it can be confusing for newbies enough without being given the wrong reason that their article is up for deletion. Cheers Kevin (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! So, no special handling (besides speedy) for articles that claim to have been long-term efforts to undermine Wikipedia's credibility? Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been undermining our credibility for a year already. A few days probably makes no difference. Kevin (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Thanks for the clarification. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Slam Stewart

You have reverted my edit to make Slam Stewart an American musician, rather than an African American musician. If for instance Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman and Chick Corea are American musicians, what makes Slam Stewart special to deserve the special mention of ethnicity in the introduction? (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While doing recent changes patrolling, which is what I was doing when I reverted you, I'm looking for vandalism. Changing racial or sexual orientation categories without a citation, even in the absence of "bad words" is always suspect. Likewise, removing or changing specific claims that have existed in an article is more suspect than adding new facts that don't contradict existing contributions. In your case, you're a new user, which raises the level of suspicion as well. On the basis of those three items, I reverted your edit. Thank you for approaching me in a polite manner to assert that your edit was in good faith. The problem with the examples of the other musicians you list is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--since Wikipedia is created by thousands of volunteers, differences in interpretation of guidelines, levels of effort, and such almost guarantee that quality and consistency will vary from article to article within a specific domain. Wikiprojects exist to attempt to balance efforts. If you want to make this edit again, adding an appropriate edit summary such as "change to be consistent with B.Goodman and D.Ellington" that demonstrates a rationale for your change should reduce the chance of another editor reverting you. I will not revert you if you make that change again, given the explanation you've given here. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for keeping Pau Gasol vandalism free!

You deserved it. I know how tedious things like that can be. I make it a point to award people for their hard work in keeping the article I built up to a GA status vandalism free. It's most likely because of the NBA Finals that Gasol is getting vandalism from IPs, I've requested a Semi-Protection lock until a couple days after the NBA Finals are over in hopes that vandalism will cool off by then. Thanks again! Gamloverks (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

SB

Thanks. There's a limit to the amount of stuff in the cleanup tag it can deal with. Rich Farmbrough, 22:18 11 June 2008 (GMT).

I have now fixed the fixed version... Rich Farmbrough, 22:21 11 June 2008 (GMT).

I'd be interested to know where you got the original syntax. Rich Farmbrough, 22:24 11 June 2008 (GMT).

Hmm... I have no idea. I'm guessing I must have subst:'ed what you put, because I don't remember cut-and-pasting anything that elaborate. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

There seems to be confusion as to the relation between Jaydon D. Paull & Zachary Jaydon. They are one in the same. A large percentage of performers/artists don't go by their legal name. Any notability no matter which of the two names they are credited under are still assertions of nobility under either or both. Many people are eliminating anything that can be user uploaded or changed. I agree with the principle of this in general, however, videos, magazine scans and the such are irrefutable proof of events or facts no matter where they came from. If there is a video of Mr. Jaydon playing with a National Rock Band, you can't say that because it was put up by a "user" that the fact doesn't remain.

While every sentence of this Wiki Article isn't strongly sourced, it doesn't mean he doesn't meat notability requirements for an article. I have scanned and uploaded quite a few of my sources at: http://zacharyjaydonwiki.blogspot.com/

Also, the following was taken directly from WP:N#MUSIC:

Criteria for composers and lyricists

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:

  1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

Jaydon has written material on several Multi-Platinum records, including *NSYNC, Craig David, Ryan Cabrera and others. These WERE songs that were included on these albums. They weren't scrapped, or obscure B-Sides. These were songs included on official releases by MAJOR artists. He obviously has notable talent if these artists are choosing to work with him. This is obviously an arguable issue, but given the success of the albums his work has been featured on, it seems at the VERY least, notable. These credits are easily verifiable here:

([1], [2], [3])

The 3 above sources are all from www.ASCAP.com which is one of the most trusted sources used on Wiki for Songwriter Credit Verification.

([4]) also shows from a VERY large, Fortune 500 companies website with information on Close To Home and confirming Mr. Jaydon's Songwriting Credits. This website would be considered reliable on any front, and also independent of the subject himself.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? Not WP:CANVASSing, I hope? At any rate, an artist should be listed under the entry by which WP:RS document his achievements. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:DYK entry

Reviewed. It only needs a minor change to pass. Good job by the way! :D -- RyRy5 (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been approved. :) Okay, now all you have to do is wait about a day or two until you receive a template like the one on my talk page. Then that will be your first DYK. Keep it up! -- RyRy5 (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fats Waller Vandalism

I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but your revision on the Fats Waller page reinstated vandalism about him being born in Passaic, NJ. Fats was born in Harlem, and vandals who watched the Be Kind, Rewind picture have been editing the page to reflect a bit from the film about him being born in Passaic. I'm sure you didn't do this on purpose, you were simply trying to revert some bad edit. I myself fixed the vandalism without realizing I could revert to a better version of the bio from some days back. We probably need to lock the page from new users, and those that have the energy and time might watch it for further vandalism from dorks that saw the movie. Anyway, just thought you might want to know that. 24.175.66.89 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep--I don't know a thing about most of the pages that people vandalize, so if one person changes facts, then another person puts in bad words, I'll pretty reliably revert the bad words to the last version without them, without any knowledge of the factual accuracy of that version. I don't remember what I reverted, it's been a few days. But thank you for 1) fixing it, and 2) bringing it to my attention. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1953 Iranian Coup

Thank you Jclemens, That is the most widely used name in English, and I think the more correct one linking better with the language history in English literature and else.--79.132.210.150 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read further on the controversy, and I now don't think it appropriate to interfere with Persian->Farsi or Farsi->Persian changes, even though I have always referred to it as Farsi. If there was a consensus on the persian language page, it might be a different matter. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

your recent reverts

Your recent revert here re-added unnecessary advertising. Please don't re-add it again.--Rockfang (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Then take out just the ad link, not the entire paragraph including a source for the phenomenon. Using edit summaries (e.g. "rm advertising") is a more efficient way to keep recent changes patrollers from reverting appropriate deletions that may not be obvious to them, especially when editing from an IP address. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I did take out the ad link and I did use a remove advertising edit summary here. Also, at no point was the whole paragraph removed. That was not me editing from the ip address. I suggest you investigate possible reverts more thoroughly before doing them.--Rockfang (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather, I erroneously assumed you were the IP remover; I've never reverted you on that page, and wouldn't do so, because your edit was the way a removal of the advertising should have been done in the first place--makes it very easy to do the right thing, thanks. If anything, I should investigate people who leave talk messages more thoroughly. :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Home Alone House

Hi, sorry I wrote here but I don't know where else. I am 'Boeing757' member and I believe you said to me that you'd help me with the 'Home Alone House' page that I created after hours of work that is up for deletion. If you could, then could you please correct the things that need correcting so it will remain on the web?? I would be very, very grateful. It's just that I don't really know what I'm doing and I think you may do.

Kind regards,

Tom Pearson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.221.108 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for following up. I think we can save the article. Here's why and how:

1. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. That is, it doesn't matter whether something that gets posted is true or not, but whether Wikipedia can cite reliable sources that back up what's said in the article. When your article was first nominated for deletion, there was nothing linked from it to a reliable source for what you've said.
2. Not everything belongs in Wikipedia. This is the bigger challenge. What Wikipedia is not is the governing policy, but the challenge here is notability, specifically the WP:NPT guideline.

So I've added a link to an external site that documented it, and I'm going to add as much more as I can find from Google. Do you have any printed sources? I won't have access to those, but they are perfectly acceptable and I can work with you to source them.

On the other hand, IF the article is deleted, or more likley, the content is merged into the "Home Alone" article, you will have learned much about Wikipedia. The goal of merging is to not remove good information, but rather to keep it organized into common-sense sized articles that make it easiest for readers to find. For example, are people going to search for "home alone house", or are they more likely to search for the movie itself? Probably the latter. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for putting sources into 'my' article. I would grately appreciate if you also placed Zillow.com as a source to where I found out the property tax, the amount the house is worth, and the rooms it has. Also, coming back to what you said about it being merged with the main 'Home Alone' article, well, I've already created a section on there entitled 'See Also'. There's a hyperlink there to the house so people can access it. Or should it be merged anyway? I like the way it stands out. It just makes it seem more kind of special.

Regards,

Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing757 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit

You claimed that this edit is "vandalism," yet I noticed that Britney Spears and Lil Wayne have their Myspace pages linked here on wikipedia. Adding Juggler's facebook page seems to be in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines, especially considering the precedent that has been set by past pages.Omnimichael (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the relevant page for your objection. WP:EL is the governing guideline--it's incumbent on someone including a social networking site to build consensus that such a site should be linked. Feel free to have a look at WP:NOT, and the vandalism messages aren't personal, they're just what the Huggle tool does by default. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Have followed you here following your post on an unrelated matter) Sorry, but Omnimichael is in the right here; that link is not vandalism. Please read WP:EL before you refer to it; links to social networking sites are explicitly permitted if they're to an official page of the article subject. Also note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a personal essay and not any kind of policy at all. – iridescent 03:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining my error. I apologize for my overzealousness. I see that you've fixed the article already. I've apologized to Omnimichael on his webpage, but he has been blocked, in part on the basis of my error. I encourage you to review his block for removal. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Andonico's already unblocked him, so hopefully that's the end of it. (Don't feel bad about the Facebook problem, btw; there's a very fine line between spamming & legitimate links.) – iridescent 16:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for embodying WP:AGF. I won't make that mistake again. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all (and I agree that Facebook links really ought to be discouraged). As a general note, when you refer to a WP:ALLCAPS page, read the note at the top; if it says "policy", it's enforceable unless they provide a good reason for ignoring it; if it says "guideline" it's strongly encouraged but not compulsory; if it says "essay" or "humor" it's someone's personal opinion. A lot of things people often think of as policies are actually just personal opinions or at most guidelines; the most significant are probably WP:ATA under its many names and the WP:MOS, but there are plenty of others; WP:FAIRUSE, WP:DENY, WP:DTTR... – iridescent 20:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK notification

On 15 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marcus J. Ranum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV.

Actually I unblocked right after blocking (he was still autoblocked though, forgot about that). No apology necessary from you; myspace links are usually added by spammers. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being gracious. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

DON'T PANIC, I don't bite. (I've always wanted to do that. :P) · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For stepping in to offer a sane opinion on the James Dobson article. Have you got it watchlisted? I'd like to step away from it. Kelly ^hi! 05:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. But it's OK to walk away from ANYTHING on Wikipedia to take a break any time you need one. The world won't end just because someone puts something stupid into an article. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate it. I don't mind walking away from some things, but leaving BLPs in a mess really bothers me - I hate seeing Wikipedia get a black eye in the press over something stupid. I had got involved with watching BLPs a while back (I do most of my work with images now) and somehow ended up with a bunch of these conservative media figures on my watchlist, like Dobson, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, and a few others. It's been frustrating because the articles aren't heavily watchlisted, and people, especially anons, constantly show up to coatrack those bios - I ended up trying to defend neutrality on a bunch of articles people whose views I don't necessarily agree with, and the new editors automatically assume you're some kind of right-wing fascist if you attempt to uphold WP:NPOV. I'll probably come back, but could use a break to work something peaceful for a while, like moving free images to the Commons. Thank you again. Kelly ^hi! 06:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I've been dragged into defending Donnica Moore in an AfD: just becasue she's a shameless self promoter, it doesn't mean she can't also be a notable author/television personality, even if her original contributions to the field of Medicine have been nil. Why? It's about the premises, of course, that anything defensible should get a defense. My brother, the public defender, would be shocked I'm seeing things his way. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that you aren't responsible for Wikipedia. You can do what you can, but you can't be responsible for all of it, all the time. That's a surefire recipe for burnout! Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Great advice, thank you. Kelly ^hi! 06:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Darker Image Article Cleanup

Thank you for helping to clean up this article. I especially like the insertion of the quote from Bill Costello.

The citation to the Calendar's appearance on "Entertainment Tonight," "Extra," and "The Jenny Jones Show" is on the website in the "Press" section under television. I think my link/fn to that should stay, as it is verifiable and the only real evidence of this.

The calendar's appearance in "Higher Learning" is not verifiable through a news source. John Singleton was impressed with what me and my partner had done and invited us down to the set of the movie and asked for some Darker Image memorabilia to put in the room of Dreads, played by Busta Rhymes. I can possibly get screen grabs of that for you from the DVD. You see our logo and one of my photos in a scene or two.

There is also no news source to verify that our track record has never been broken, but I am very well informed in this regard and I can tell you that no other prominent urban models has gotten distribution in stores like Barnes & Noble since the Darker Image. They all sold their calendars through their websites and/or sites like Amazon.

Not sure how to resolve this. I don't want an admin to see the need for verification and delete the article. Please advise and thanks again for your input. PutneySwope1 (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

An unsourced statement or two, especially if they're not outrageous or offensive, (which they're not) won't torpedo the article.

Boy, your site is like 100% animated. Looks cool, but it makes it hard to include URLs for citation. I'm on a slow link right now, so I can't look at the videos, but here's what I'd do.

1. For the models who've gone on to be famous, cite the specific month and year they appeared. Like: [[jane doe]]<ref>September, 1995</ref>
2. For the TV shows, if you can do the same sort of thing and put in the show name, air date, etc. I can help you put those into the {{cite television}} format.

At any rate, don't sweat it too much. I think you've got it made, we just need to dot some i's and cross some t's to answer "Why should this be in a worldwide encyclopedia?" for people who have never heard of it. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

HotCat

I saw your message at User talk:PutneySwope1 about HotCat. I hadn't played with that gadget, but I decided to check it out. Thank you for mentioning it! It's a nifty little tool. Is there some way, though, to click through to the Category's page before adding it, to check for subcategories? (E.g., click on American models to see the African American models subcat.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. It's a shortcut for categories that you already know exist and are appropriate, but I think it's pretty lacking at getting at what else is available. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Computer/Information Security?

See this, FYI -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Taser controversy AfD

Thank you for your input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy. The latest discussions include Talk:Taser controversy#re:Globalise and Talk:Taser controversy#Renaming this article?. Flatscan (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Wilson (theologian)

If you disagree with my edits please discus them at the relevant talk page. Please do not just keep reverting them. Thank you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, although it's not entirely sure who is being bold and who is reverting... regardless, good idea. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review?

Hey Jclemens, I was going through the editor review pages and reviewing a few of my fellow editors and noticed that your request for review was rather old. Would you still like someone to give you a review on that page? If so let me know by contacting me on my talk page. Have a nice day! %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 18:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you got it, I just finished. hope it helps %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 19:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

USER 76.212.156.255 ANSWERING THE ECLECTEK & JCLEMENS

-Dear friend Eclektek : 1st) Saint Ignatius of Loyola is the patron of BISCAY(=BIZKAIA=VIZCAYA) as well as the patron of Guipuzcoa=Gipuzkoa . 2nd) He is not the patron of Araba(=Alava) . Araba,Bizkaia and Gipuzkoa are the 'Autonomous Basque Country or Euskadi '.But Saint Ignatius is not the patron of Araba(=Alava) ,so he ,unfortunately ,is not the patron of 'Basque Country or Euskadi' nor any other 'Basque Country'. Thanks a lot ,and the next time ,instead of talking about wiki rules and similar things ,you should have more documentation in order to avoid writing incorrect information or lack of information .

PATRON OF GIPUZKOA AND BISCAY BUT NOT ALAVA(UNFORTUNATELY):

For Eclectek & Jclemens : I think the following information could help you and demonstrate what I said before :

You can check the official calendar ,published in Boletin oficial of each one of the three territories of Autonomous community of Basque Country,in the followings: -Gipuzkoa=Guipuzcoa ---> 31 st July : Holiday :Saint Ignatius of Loyola ,is the patron of Guipuzcoa:

                 https://ssl4.gipuzkoa.net/castell/bog/2007/10/29/c0711660.htm

-Bizkaia=Vizcaya=Biscay---> 31 st July : Holiday :Saint Ignatius of Loyola ,is the patron of Vizcaya:

                  http://www.bizkaia.net/lehendakaritza/Bao_bob/2007/11/20071109a219.pdf#page=97

-Araba=Alava ----> no holiday in 31 st of July ,because Saint Ignatius of Loyola is not the patron of Alava (The patron of Alava is 'San Prudencio' celebrating holiday in 28th of April :

http://www.euskadi.net/r33-2288/es/contenidos/informacion/5907/es_2296/adjuntos/CALENDARIO%202008%20ALAVA.pdf. —Retrieved

from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ignatius_of_Loyola"

 THANK YOU ,and include Saint Ignatius of Loyola as patron of 'Vizcaya=Bizkaia=Biscay'  as soon as possible ,and don't put patron of 'Basque Country' only Bizkaia and Gipuzkoa,because the third territory Alava(=Araba) has another patron.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.156.255 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC) 

I honestly don't know how to proceed with the edits from the user above. I'll let you handle it. Eclectek ^{C T} 02:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In english ,saint ignatius patron of Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia

From the following internet adress :

                 http://www.turismoa.euskadi.net/contenidos/informacion/s11_folletos/en_s11/folletos/cultura/cultura_ing_fiestas_verano.pdf

Just Behind 'La Blanca Festivities' picture you can find this paragraph :

Towards the end of July, we come to the fiesta of St. Ignatius of Loiola, patron saint of Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia, involving one of the most solemn processions in the country. The day after St. Ignatius, on August 1, the local and provincial authorities, the Lehendakari (President of the Basque Autonomous Community) accompanied by local authorities, the clergy and citizens come from all over to attend the solemn acts in honour of the Patron Saint

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.156.255 (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Acharya S

I put a copy here. Hope you don't mind. I copied it minutes before it was deleted. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, thanks, I appreciate it. I am, however, going to wait for the deleting admin to get back to me before working on it. If he wants us to go through DRV, then I'll follow the process. I think it's an incorrect outcome reached in good faith, and certainly not so urgent that it needs an WP:IAR response. I am impressed, though--looks like you got my last edit. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Personally, I can't understand why it would go straight to deletion rather than discussing the issue on the talk page first. But I'm not too familiar with the AFD process. Regardless, I'm not concerned if it stays deleted for a while. I'm sure a new article will be created eventually. Thanks. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work, saving the article here. I absolutely can't believe they could make the case that this article should be deleted! Unreal. What do you have to do to be notable enough for WP, for crying out loud! Geĸrίtz (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the article

Ok, so we have permission to fix the article in user space. User:Jclemens/Acharya_S is the official site it was restored to, and we have the deleting admin's blessing to fix it and take it to DRV. If you're reading this, feel free to help out by...

1. Citing sources. Not everything has to be a RS, but enough of them have to be.
2. Making sure claims are claims and facts are facts.
3. Let's look for her under Murdock and see what else we can find.
4. Add with an eye towards demonstrating, to someone who's never seen the article or the deletion discussion, and who is completely unfamiliar with the subject area, that this article belongs back in mainspace.

Sound like a plan? Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! ^^James^^ (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've posted some more potential sources on the talk page. ^^James^^ (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to work on it in my subpage here--I will be out of town for a few days, and am pretty busy between now and then, so won't get a chance to really give this a good look until Saturday. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem

I took a careful look at the AfD, as well as the talkpage. I've yet to see you take a misstep. I thought you kept your cool admirably well, considering how volatile the situation was becoming. But if I start to notice anything untoward, I'll certainly let you know. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 17:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also thought you handled yourself very well and made a lot of constructive edits in relation to a recent AfD (maybe a different one). I'd like to tell you more along these lines, but am not sure whether I want to do so publicly, however you don't have email enabled, so I don't seem to have that option. An alternative is for you to go to my page and click on "E-mail this user". I'm thinking you should get a barnstar, but don't know much about them. Can you suggest one you think might be appropriate, and/or point me to some of your other best work? Anyway, thanks for a job well-done. -Exucmember (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Computer and Information Security task force

Would you like to get started on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force . I will help with what I can ... -- Tinu Cherian - 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I'll be getting around to that, possibly tomorrow. I flit around between different efforts on Wikipedia, and the computer security bug has simply not bitten lately. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the refs on Dobson's article

I did a sloppy quick edit to get the material on the page and intended to go back, but of course life intervened. I'll go ahead and copy your work (with credit to you) to the FotF page, too. 67.135.49.186 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but really--credit is not needed. All I did is put information from web pages into templates. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for starting reference to Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated

Thanks for also for starting to add references to Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. You started what I had hoped to do earlier this week.--Dan Dassow (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued help regarding this article. I will continue to add appropriate citations as I find them. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the complement. I try.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I call 'em like I see 'em. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

You are welcome, I will try and take a second look at the article to see if there are other issues. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

TV IV etc.

There was no indication on the pages that these websites were notable per WP:WEB. All the page said, basically, was "This is a TV website and we give an award." There were no sources except the website itself. If you have external sources indicating notability, feel free to repost. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There may not have been enough sources to survive an AfD--I can't find sufficient sourcing in 5 minutes of googling--but I believe there was a sufficient assertion of notability that A7 was not appropriate. "as a response to TV Tome becoming TV.com" (thanks, Google cache) may be pretty oblique, but TV Tome is a pretty major website. If you'll observe the current TV Tome article, TV IV was a split-out of that article. I believe undoing the speedy and tagging it for AfD would be the most correct outcome, to give other editors time to find appropriate sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, not a problem. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be participating in the AfD's. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind undeleting the IVy awards and adding them to the AfD, too? I'd think their fate should be essentially the same as the parent article. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Intergrated banner for WikiProject Computer networking

I have made a proposal for a intergrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note since I thought that you might be interested.. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Official adoption

Hey there, Jclemens. Long time no see. If you remember quite a while ago, I said I couldn't officially adopt you yet, but I could mentor you. Now, I can officially adopt. If you want, we can now start the adoption and mentoring process between you and me. I'll be using my adoption center for a better learning experience. It's your choice. Best, RyRy (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure that would really be all that beneficial for either of us, as I've been learning a good bit on my own. It would probably be a better use of your time to find some totally clueless newbie to mentor. I've always felt free to ask you questions should the need arise, but I've found that lately I have questions that are more appropriate for people even more experienced than you. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, very well then. Yeah, I have noticed you've been learning a lot on your own, and I've seen some great AfD work. Well, thanks anyway. Regards, RyRy (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fire Service Project

Hi, Just joined the fire service project and noticed there has not been much activity in this area, is this still an active project? If so, could you give me a little guidance on what is what and so on. I'm a career lieutenant in Virginia, for over twenty years I've been an active student of the fire service and would like to share some of the knowledge gained. Thanks for any input you can provide.Axebracket (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Axebracket, and welcome to the Fire Service project. At this point, I think it's more of a set of individual firefighters working on things that interest them, rather than a unified project... in other words, it's semi-active. I think two things that need to be done are 1) get rid of or augment a bunch of department-specific stuff, like the LAFD helmet colors in Bunker gear if memory serves. 2) make a bunch of the articles more worldwide. One of the things that's on my to-do list is merge all the "fire chief" articles (fire master, chief fire officer, etc.) into one article. Hope that's a good start, off to shift! Jclemens (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Browsing the fire service pages I see your point on things such as the LAFD helmets, also, I am a little suprised at the ammount of information that is not factual or "correct term, incorrect description". Well, now the task at hand is to man up and do some editing. I am cautious, and a little nervous as a wiki-rookie, to do anything.....I guess trial by fire eh? My first day on the job I found the senior man on shift, introduced myself, and said "my eyes and ears are open and my mouth is shut, tell me what to do and when it get's done and I'm on it." If in your travels around the fire service pages you see me making a goof let me know...I am the rook... Axebracket (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Gaah, I sure hope I'm not the senior man on this shift! I've only been in the fire service 2 years, and only as a pretty active volunteer, rather than career. One of the things I'd like to understand is how things differ on the west coast vs. east coast, since all the firefighters I know are in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. More ultimately, I'd like to find active firefighters in the other English speaking countries, because east vs. west coast may differ Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. are going to be completely different, with Canada probably in between U.S. and the rest of the commonwealth. But by all means, let's dive in and make a difference. Do you have many fire service books? One thing that Wikipedia is big on is finding reliable sources for things. That is, despite what you or I know about the fire service, if there's any disagreement about what something means, the person who has a good source--written book, government document, or news website--to back up their position "wins." Frankly, I think that's not really so much a problem at this point, but it'll be a good thing to get in the habit of doing properly. So what sorts of Fire Service stuff do you want to work on? Are there any other areas of Wikipedia you want to get to? I edit stuff on religion, comic books, and computer security, too--one nice thing about Wikipedia is you're not restricted to one area. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I started as a very active volunteer as well, and, in the fire service project and Wikipedia you are the senior man....I respect tenure. East vs. West sometimes is more superficial i.e. helmet style, types of apparatus, etc. an interesting example is San Francisco F.D., they are often refered to as an east coast style department on the west coast. I have a contact in the U.K, he is a station officer (capt) in Sommerset Fire Brigade. Plenty of books, I'm a instructor too, before going back on the floor I ran 3 recruit academys. Very rewarding but I was happy to get back to my engine co. I looked at some of your edits in the fire service stuff and I thought this is someone that has a clue...so, I am with you on making a difference, it seems like there is blank canvass out there. Areas I'd like to work on are fire behavior, RIT, Line of duty deaths and why we keep repeating the same mistakes, ensuring correct fire service terminology is used.....beyond fire stuff...civil war, intelligence agencies, and the middle east of which a large part of is religion de facto.Axebracket (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So... what do you want to do first? If you have nothing in mind, going through glossary of firefighting terms and glossary of firefighting equipment is a good start. Feel free to work there--add new information to entries that are deficient, and correct things that are downright wrong. The last part is more challenging, because what someone else has listed as "right" is usually "right... in their jurisdiction" so it can be challenging to write things both ways. For example, in the western US, tankers have wings and tenders drive on roads. :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from the EMS Taskforce

• I have seen you have taken interest in other EMS related articles and we currently will be doing a GA/article improvement on Emergency medical service it will be our first project as a task force and would love your input and editing, Cheers! Medicellis (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear Jclemens...If you are still interested in participating in WikiProject Media franchises, please remove your name from the inactive participants list and add it to the active participants list. If you don't have time, but would still like to show some support, you can always add yourself to the sympathizers list. It would be wonderful to see you in the project. Have a nice day! - LA (T) 19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A.I. Artificial Intelligence

You passed the GA but I don't see a review page anywhere; it's showing up as a red link on the GA template on the talk page, and I don't see it in your edits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It passed everything fine without needing comment. I'll go ahead and do one, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank Kaufmann AfD

Cross-posted to the AfD, and Hrafn's page Let me begin by saying that this AfD has become something of a disgrace. The flinging around of various charges, needs to stop. It has become exceedingly difficult to see past all the heat generated between the two parties central to the discussion. This is unacceptable, and I would propose that both users (Hrafn and Jclemens) not respond again on the AfD, so that others more dispassionate about the subject can calmly discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of keeping or deleting this article. I will post my recommendation (keep, delete, merge, or redirect) at the AfD shortly. ^S._D.Jameson 11:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

RE; the new Serenity comic

I'm not the one who originally added it to the article. However, I can show it exists, but not much more beyond that. -- saberwyn 02:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

RE; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apotactics

Hi Jclemens. Sorry it has taken me some time to get back to you. Let me start by saying that I am super impressed with you for contacting me with that question and that I am by no means the guru of civility all the time, as I too have my moments. I guess I would say just watch out for escalators (i.e. comments and words that someone could take offense to). Remember, typed words are more prone to causing offense than spoken ones because people can't hear one's tone of voice or read one's body language. So even though you may have meant to communicate something in a non-harsh way it may be percieved as harsh. I think undeath took this phrase harshly: "In light of the overwhelming number of references there, going well back into the 19th century, it would be appropriate for the nominator to withdraw this to avoid further embarassment." Not knowing you or your tone of voice that phrase could come off as a bit condecending, dismissive, and arrogant. And really it didn't have to. All you could have said was "In light of the overwhelming number of references there, going well back into the 19th century, it would be appropriate for the nominator to withdraw this AFD." It was that last "to avoid further embarassment" that escalated Undead's response, causing him to ignore your valid (and in my opinion correct) point of view. My only other suggestion would be to always assume good faith at first and that whenever an editor appears to have made an obvious mistake it is most likely because they lack experience in the wiki world and not because they themselves are stupid. It is almost always better to take the opportunity to teach someone kindly than to smack them on the back of their head for being an idiot. That way the person learns from their mistake and is less likely to repeat it and there are no terse conversations flying around. Well that was lengthy. I hope it helped.Nrswanson (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's important not to assume too much about what the other person is thinking or aware of. In this case, I don't think Jclemens was aware that the Catholic Encyclopedia was in the public domain and that it was in fact a reliable source. So rather than biting his head off over it we just needed to inform him of that fact.Nrswanson (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Media franchises unofficial coordinator

Dear Jclemens...I am so happy that you are willing to help WikiProject Media franchises. I am still reaching out to other WikiProjects to see if we can get some more interest, so I would like to depend on you and the others to do things like get articles assessed and find other articles which might need our attention by placing {{WikiProject Media franchises}} on their talk pages. Another thing is to start using {{Infobox Media franchises}} on franchise articles. I trust you to use your best judgment and hope that you have some time to spare.

If you haven't already done so, you can add {{User WikiProject Media franchises}} to your user page or dedicated user box page. When enough people have that, or WikiProject Media franchises participants on the user pages, I will start that category.

I may not be the best coordinator around, but I am doing my best. I hope that you approve. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of Yonge and Eg Magazine on Yonge and Eglinton wiki page

Hi Jclemens,

I wanted to discuss your removal "Yonge and Eg" from the Yonge and Eglinton page on Wiki.

I can't access that "WP:EL" page you referenced (some error comes up), but your comments were: "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." should be avoided. A coupon book's website, by definition, is such a site. The fact that it may be delivered free to the entire neighbourhood is irrelevant. I have removed it and the associated paragraph.

I have to ask - do you live in this neighbourhood? Do you know Yonge and Eg at all? And did you actually visit the website in question?

The neighbourhood is a hot spot in Toronto that features a lot of turnover, both in residents and in businesses. Due to this, there are constantly people and places that are new to the neighbourhood, and thus, people on both ends want to have resources that tell them what is where.

Yonge and Eg magazine features offers/coupons from places, but the site does not sell products or services. There is nowhere on there that asks people to buy anything or even collect information from them. It simply offers them info about places in their neighbourhood and a way to save some money when going to them. And if you've been to the site, you'd see there is very little in the way of advertising. Simply a description of the neighbourhood and its people, a description of the publication and the list of places with their offers.

The fact that it's delivered to the entire neighbourhood is far from irrelevant. People in the Yonge and Eg neighbourhood are the only recipients of the magazine. It is a community resource for them and them alone. It has been around for many issues now and has become a part of the community.

If it were a site with pop up ads, e-commerce, or that required people to sign up for a service, or didn't even have a print edition, I'd completely agree with your assessment. However, I think you've missed the mark completely. This is an actual print publication that is completely free, completely harmless and completely part of the Yonge and Eglinton community, and it deserves to be mentioned just as much as any of those other companies who have "free advertising" on the page.

Thanks in advance for reading and for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.255.111 (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well then, feel free to remove any external links to the "other companies who have free advertising on the page." WP:EL should bring up a page explaining the external links poicy in detail. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So then by that standard, the magazine can be mentioned and described as a relevant part of the community, and you just think it shouldn't contain an external link? If that's the case, fine, let's put it back up without the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.80.64 (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would try that, and see if the other editors agree. Essentially, Wikipedia tries to neither economically benefit nor harm anyone. If the magazine has merit that's not simply advertising, then add it back in without the link--but I would caution against describing it as a coupon book, which is simply another name for ad circulars in the US. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tsugaru clan

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for reviewing Tsugaru clan; I was looking high and low for more people to review it. I've taken your suggestion and delinked all the redlinked stuff; some of it is even redlinked on the corresponding ja-wiki article, so I dunno if I'd be able to find information easily to turn them blue. Anyway, I hope that the delinking helps. -Tadakuni (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, a certain amount of redlinkage is appropriate. Perhaps half a dozen links in an article of that size would have been fine, but that one had more like 20-30. You're perfectly fine to remove all of them, but it's really not necessary. Feel free to add back a few redlinks that you personally hope to work on or know will be examined by a Wikiproject/task force soon enough. Jclemens (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GA for Whedonesque.com

I've updated my comments on the talk page. Sorry but in the time since I've read the page I found a few more items you will want to address, as well as some responses to your questions. :) Cheers! —— nixeagle 00:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You are doing good work. :)

Stonyhurst College

Many thanks for your assessment of Stonyhurst College. I will work on the issues you raised this weekend. Orexis bouleutike (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was a pleasant article and I enjoyed reading it. Just drop me a note when you want it reassessed, and I don't anticipate any problems getting to it directly. Jclemens (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass! Orexis bouleutike (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and the other editors for providing a fundamentally good article, and then working to dot the i's and cross the t's in a timely manner. All I did was read it with a critical eye--much less work than doing it! Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Response?

You never responded back on the Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist light novels issue, or addressed the highly charged atmosphere that was the reason I asked for outside intervention. Westrim (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I stopped watchlisting the page when I saw that there were more than two editors participating. Collectionian and Sephiroth have far more Anime/Manga experience than I do, and my general input won't be as useful to you as their topic-specific knowledge. Jclemens (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeal for a second look

Appeal to your Third Opinion comment on Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

You do not need a third opinion here, as three editors are involved in this dispute. I would encourage all editors adding tags to provide specific, current examples that support the tagging, and any editor removing tags to provide specific comments on how they believe their edits have remedied the issues raised by the editor placing the tag. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there are really only two editors involved: myself (BoogaLouie) and CreazySuit. I think Otolemur crassicaudatus has moved on.

There is only one editor adding tags (CreazySuit) and he has given no explanation except "If you review the discussion page, several users have expressed their concern that this page suffers from POV issues." This is dispite the fact that

1. the old POV complaints are not specific and
2. the article has been almost rewritten since the last POV complaint.

To answer your request that any editor removing tags provide specific comments on how they believe their edits have remedied the issues raised by the editor placing the tag.

... how can I "provide specific comments" on how [I] believe [my] edits "have remedied the issues" when the tagger won't give any?

I think the issue here is time. Someone who does not like an article can spend a few moments adding lots of tags, give a generic complaint in wikispeak ("review the discussion page") and go back to their video game, while the person trying to get the tags removed legitimately (without a revert war) defends the article and wades thru all the wikipedia procedure, solicit third opinions or Requests for comment, and hopes for some imput. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The advice was given to be balanced and broadly applicable. If you, in good faith, have no idea why the tag was placed, then remove the tag, and note on the talk page why you do not believe it applies or why you have no idea how it could possibly be remedied since the complaint is so non-specific, per WP:BRD. You shouldn't be getting in trouble for doing so as long as you keep within WP:3RR and make a logical, calm, reasoned post on the talk page each time you remove them. You're absolutely right that it seems to take a disproportionate amount of time to remove tags, vs. place them. Don't let it--if a tag is a hit-and-run tagging, make sure you give it at least as much effort to document your removal, but that doesn't mean that you need to expend a huge amount of effort. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd Manning

Can you explain why you failed Todd Manning, and how exactly is it not a good article? It is expected that the editor reviewing the article explains on the talk page why it was failed and what improvements are needed. The Todd Manning article is in no worse shape than plenty of GA articles I have seen. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You did not even put the article on hold, and ask for improvements. I am nominating the article again, and going to an editor who will specifically address what I have stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be listing it at Good article reassessment. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I read your GA review, and will make the suggested improvements to the prose. I should have read over some of those earlier parts again, especially. But I still see that as no reason to have failed this article, especially when it could have been put on hold. It most certainly did not deserve a "quick fail"... After all, it had been listed for nomination there for quite a while without being quick-failed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem, as I see it, is that you nominated an article for GA which had "A conscience that Todd ignored." as a sentence.... well, masquerading as a sentence, really--it's clearly a sentence fragment, and that's just one example. I sampled random paragraphs from parts of the article and found atrocious prose that in no way resembled "reasonably good writing." At that point I had two choices:

1. Spend a ton of time ferreting out and enumerating basic English errors from which to generate an extensive list of issues, or
2. Failing it and moving on to something which had more potential to be GA quality in the near future.

I chose the latter because I quickly found multiple, "showstopper" issues and did not choose to invest the work involved in the first option. Feel free to go to GAR, or renominate it. I strongly recommend peer review for the prose, because while some GA reviewers might take it upon themselves to read and give the detailed feedback the article needs, but I do not. It'd be great if you got to GA with this article, but not by simply renominating the same writing and hoping no one notices, but by taking the research, images, and structure, which all looked reasonably good, and applying the same level of discipline to the writing. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And I got to doing that. I would not nominate the same article for GA without making improvements. Sure, I was lazy with the prose and did not read over the article as much as I should have before nominating it, but going back over the article, I still saw few problems with it. The prose you pointed out in your GA review I just took care of not too long ago. It was that simple. I noticed other prose problems along the way. It was that simple. I am aware of what "reasonably good writing" is, and all you had to do was list the first three problems you pointed out in your GA review on the talk page of this article, and how the article largely needed its prose fixed, and I would have gotten on that quickly (since I had clearly disregarded a lot of the awful prose), just like I'm doing now. It's not like the entire Portrayals section, for instance, needed rewriting. In fact, none of the sections needed/need complete rewriting. They were simple problems.

But, anyway, yes, it was/is certainly my responsibility to make sure that the article was/is up to par (just like I'm doing with the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article) before nominating for GA or FA, and I should have been more careful. For that, I apologize for wasting your time. I, however, do not feel that this article needs to be peer reviewed for prose that I can surely take care of without further direction, and especially not when peer reviews for soap opera articles do not seem all that fruitful (by that, I mean that not a lot of editors show up, usually). Peace. Flyer22 (talk)

Joey Jordison

I'm kind of confused, the article has had many reverts recently because it is vandalised often. How does vandalism translate to unstability? There is no "ongoing edit war or content dispute" as the criteria defines stability. Blackngold29 05:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, going back through things from the past week in detail, this and this are clearly vandalism, but this, this, and this do not appear to be vandalism. At least two of those non-vandalism examples, the mask and the drum kit, appear to have been reinserted after reversion, and the mask appears to be currently under discussion on the talk page. So while I agree that no article should be penalized merely for being subject to vandalism, I think there is sufficient evidence of multiple ongoing content disputes that fail is a more appropriate outcome than hold at this point.

Having said that, I will re-review the article once you think the other substantive issues have been addressed. Leave me a note here once you believe that it warrants a reexamination, and I'll make giving it another GA review a priority. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The three examples that you mentioned are unsouced WP:OR. There is no "mask discussion" unless the user can provide a source, which he has not done. The drum-kit is the same thing, while writing the article Rezter and I decided it verged on WP:TRIVIA as no other drummers listed every aspect of their kit at the time of GA approval. Blackngold29 05:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Granted, but WP:OR is not WP:VANDALism unless done in bad faith. I support your decisions and reasoning, but I can't call them "not a content dispute". Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I probably won't have time to work on it soon, but I'll remember to let you know when I re-nom it. Hopefully it'll cool off by then. Thanks! Blackngold29 06:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)

I used a new javascript tool to fix MOS related problems, *isn't blaming his actions on semi automatic tools!!!!* in the final preview page, I thought I'd eliminated all of the single bracket changes the script had made, obviously I didn't. My apologies, I'll aim to be more careful in the future :P —— RyanLupin • (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Yes, I will get around to it, for future reference, I have written up User:Nixeagle/GA. —— nixeagle 19:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Archives are not suppose to be used to hide the unresolved discussions regarding the POV issues of a page. --CreazySuit (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They are not. "See above" is not a sufficient explanation for a tag. If you want the tags kept, provide specific explanations of the currently disputed items. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Specific issues have already been brought up by several other users whose concerns were never addressed. You can`t solve the problem by erasing the question, and you can`t sweep certain problems under the rug by prematurely archiving the talk page. So kindly stop. --CreazySuit (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you believe there are problems with the current article, kindly restate them. That is all that has been asked, but all that has been provided is "other editors have raised issues"--not specific enough for constructive dialogue or article improvement. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

CEH?

"(rv. Hacker means criminal in common parlance; other definitions are wishful thinking.)"

That would be your opinion. Various sources have seen the benefit of using Ethical Hackers. It would appear to me that your edit reflects bias that is discuraged on wikipedia. I am open to discussion on my talk page. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue really is in common parlance--do a man-on-the-street survey, and you'll get people defining hacker as "computer criminal" more often than "computer expert" or even "a really smart person who has a compulsion to understand how things work." When I find the time to get sufficient documentation, I will add it to all the appropriate "hacker" articles. The CEH-proponents are just one group of people who use 'hacker' Quixotically, wishing that it meant something that it no longer does and has not for decades, and labeling themselves in a problematic manner as an opportunity to evangelize their position. It's their right to do whatever they want, but if my locksmith started calling himself a "Certified Ethical Burglar" or my hypothetical proctologist adopted "Certified Ethical Rapist" as his professional handle, that wouldn't go over so well with the public. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but the article is referencing the professinal certification, in any case, perhaps societey views us that way, but we have to take it back someway. And education is the oly way that will happen.
Respectfully,
Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think you will ever "reclaim" the term hacker, you're not being realistic. Hacker means computer criminal, with a few other arcane definitions that no one outside the hacking subculture cares about. If you did manage to expend the vast amount of energy needed to convince people that "crackers" are bad and "hackers" are good, then what, really, has been accomplished? At any rate, this is not related to development of the encyclopedia, so that's all that I will say about it here. Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not violating neutral point of view

You stupid fuck. You can't get banned for legit edits. It isn't an "opinion" that I am adding into the article. The change of edit I revert to adds the line "although a completely seperate mechanical device" which is A FACT. That is not an opinion, they are TWO SEP-A-RATE TH-I-NG-S. Do you have down syndrome or something? THEY ARE TWO SEPERATE DEVICES, THIS IS AN INDISTUPITABLE FACT. Christ I feel bad for you people sometimes. 76.101.72.59 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that you're blocked--in part for such civility breaches--please go read Talk:Magazine (firearms) where the consensus wording (which describes the variant usages for "clip" and "magazine", chronicles our discussion of how to present both the technical and vernacular usage, and discusses reliable sources which support multiple definitions) was hammered out. I never said, nor would I, that you were incorrect. What I would say is that your edits don't reflect what WP:RS and your fellow editors have to say about the matter. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

Hi Jclemens, thanks for this explanation. As I think is clear, I continue to disagree with you over the significance of Acharya S, but I appreciate that you took the time to explain yourself. I agree with quite a bit of what you said, particularly "I fully believe that she, and the other JMH advocates, deserve fair, impartial, and proportionate coverage." I simply think that giving her the kind of coverage you want is disproportionate in comparison to the other figures in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So it may be. However, what I included is substantially cut down from what was in her article originally... see User:Jclemens/Acharya S for the scratch space on the article. The solution to disproportion in coverage is not to penalize those who've labored on a particular sub-topic, but rather to balance out the matter by including more material for the underrepresented advocates. This isn't an A vs. B section, where emphasizing A inherently biases the article against B. Rather, this is an A and B and C and D... section, where emphasizing one entry may give a false impression of the importance of that subject, but doesn't denigrate the others included. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You might find this interesting:

Just reported your edit warring partner to 3rr Noticeboard. See here: [5]. Keep the faith, brother. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm done with him for the day, though, because edits against consensus, no matter how pigheaded, aren't 3RR exempt if they're not clearly vandalism. I'll keep reverting him up to that limit, but the "I'm right, by God, and the universe should sit up and notice!" attitude is all too familiar to me. I really never expect him to darken the talk page and actually discuss what the article ought to say, which is a shame. Guys like him give all gun owners a bad name. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

irestorer

Hello my friend,

Please Don't remove IRestorer article. It's a notable program. very better than Ghost & Acronis... extreme fast & amazing compression rate... you can try it.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.172.251 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to do two things:

1) Read WP:CANVASS and a few other wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:COI would be good for starters.

2) Make your arguments in the AfD discussion, rather than on a talk page. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Whedonesque.com

Hmm... I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable hijacking another guy's review like that. Though on second thought, that's sort of what I did already, wasn't it?

I'll take a look at it later tonight after I do the two lit reviews I'm in the middle of. I realize it's probably pretty disheartening to see your article fail due to timeout, since I just put up a nomination of my own and then realized there were about 200 people in front of me in line. --erachima talk 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty persistent, and this whole process has really compelled me to go above and beyond what I ever expected this article has the potential to become. It's all good, because I've learned so much in the process, and I've been observing plenty of other GA articles which are in worse shape than mine. :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to erachima, I just did not have the time to finish it (school has started here). I was planning on finishing it this saterday, but if some policy wonk wanted to fail it because of time, then I'm glad it was dealt with by someone else. Thanks to both of you! —— nixeagle 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You did some good work on that - the article is looking way better than when I stopped reviewing it, even.

I suppose it depends on subject area, but The Rambling Man, Gary King, Scorpion0422, and Dweller are names that pop into my head as excellent featured list folk. I'm sure they'd be happy to help.

Cheers! —Giggy 06:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mentoring Request for FLC

Sure I can help out. I assume the article is not ready yet as of now, though :p Gary King (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a somewhat similar list that you can use for inspiration: Colleges of the University of Cambridge Gary King (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Gary King (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Indiana General Assembly

I have made the adjustments you recommended on the GA review page. You can check it out whenever you have a chance to make sure the issues are addressed. Thanks Charles Edward 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

Hi. Could you point out any more problems with the prose please? I've been through it. The problem is - I wrote most of it so its about the best prose I can do by myself without someone saying what is wrong with it. Fainites ^barley 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm in and out all day, I'll get to a substantive review in the evening. If you don't mind me fixing things as I go--which I believe is allowed by the GA rules--I'll just help out. Sound good? Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fantastic to me. The trouble is - you read over something so many times you can't see the wood for the trees! Fainites ^barley 22:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I got through the first two major sections. If you don't understand any of the tags, ask. I'll try to get to the rest of it later. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done those tags. I've pretty much rewritten the historical roots section. Hopefully its clearer now.Fainites ^barley 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How about some feedback on the tagging? Did it make sense? Do you think I was too harsh? I'll try to get to the rest of it later this afternoon--off to play chess with my 7 year old. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The tags were all legit and I addressed the first lot here [6]. Then I ended up rearranging and adding stuff to the historical roots section to address you last tag. Fainites ^barley 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Whats passive voice? Fainites ^barley 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Active voice: "The APSAC Task Force stated..." Subject, verb.

Passive voice: "There are controversies within the attachment therapy community about coercive practices." English passive voice gives a better summary of why it's different than I could. I'm a grammar technician, not an artist or engineer. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm neither. Fainites ^barley 23:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<-- And that's why I'm suggesting peer review might be a good next stop. You'll hopefully get an editor who can better work with the nuances and help you in the process. You're communicating effectively, but it's still feeling like it's written at too (unnecessarily, in my view) high a grade level to be considered reasonably good prose. There exist better coaches than I, I'm certain, I just don't really know who they are. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea

If you have time and the inclination, can you revisit Wilderness Diarrhea? It would be appreciated, although the problem is morphing a little. Thanks. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Category cruft

Sure thing. We're going to need to put a lid on this once and for all though, this IP has been adding cruft and ignoring warnings for ages now. Bignole reported him a few days ago but nothing came of it because the IP wasn't active at the time. Do you have any suggestions for dealing with him/her? When it comes to vandalism, I tend to just revert and walk away, but that's clearly not enough in this case.  Paul  730 23:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

s/he just got blocked for 48h, and I put in a WP:AN3 notice as well. It's just stupid. Zythe and I disagreed about a few of the categories, which is cool, because we can--wow--discuss it. This IP editor is like arguing with a wall. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as you know from the whole "You're Welcome (Angel episode)" edit war, I have no patience whatsoever with editors who refuse to discuss changes. When they won't give you so much as an edit summary justifying why they think something should be this way, it's just plain ignorance and you have to wonder if they're just edit warring for the sake of it. Thank you for keeping a clear head and dealing with it in a more professional manner. :)  Paul  730 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Knowing that I'm working with a team of other people who care provides a good bit of moral support! Thanks for your kind words. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with killing the cruft, for the most part, too. Just lending a voice of support.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Larry Kroon

• In every article I included Kroon was interviewed, quoted and/or discussed. Not merely mentioned, interviewed quoted or discussed. His invitation to the fairly outrageous Jews for Jesus speaker was discussed at some length by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency Politico, Andrew Sullivan and other highly reputable sources. The most recent deletion was of an interview that Kroon gave yesterday to one of america's more notorious anti-Semites, and antisemitic web pages. The unwillingness to allow facts to appear on Wikipedia is outrageous. The facts about Kroon are not so bad. He's a Christian, He thinks the Jews need to become Christians. It's not news. it is, however, notable because of who the man is Pastor to. What does need media attention is the extreme bias of Wikipedia editors.160.39.35.45 (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

"it is, however, notable because of who the man is Pastor to." demonstrates that you really need to read WP:NOTINHERITED--consider the last paragraph and apply the same logic to pastor/congregant relationships. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to leave nasty comments on someone's page at least have the courage to sign them.

Mercury543210 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1) WP:AGF. Looks like I was in such a hurry to try and get you blocked for editwarring that I didn't type enough tildes.

2) If the message is both true (it was; review your edit history as desired) and "nasty" (your words), then that's not particularly my problem. See WP:UWT for similar messages. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

chris brils

Hi, sorry but I blanked the page as it is an infringment, it is taken literally from Hedge Fund Intelligence, please remove it

www.hedgefundintelligence.com/eh/WeeklyNews.aspx?ArticleID=2005809 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doelman78 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. In the future, you can add {{db-g12}} yourself. See WP:CSD for the requirements. Also, if you had added an edit summary like "blanking copyvio", I would have known not to revert that edit. Sorry about the confusion. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

John Zogby

i would not presume to dispute you, but i was wondering what makes the edit negative...the name 'Salameh Esad', or the religion change. his brother, james, also had similar edits made today.--emerson7 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to presume to dispute me! I'm always willing to explain why I make the reverts I do.

An unsourced change in ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion is always presumptively negative. That is, whether the change is from Catholic to Muslim or Muslim to Catholic, I presume that a person of faith A would view being falsely portrayed as faith B as a negative, as might their friends, fans, associates, countrymen, co-religionists, etc. If there's no citation for the change included with the change, as these lacked, it presumptively fails WP:V. Note that I didn't revert any of the changes that editor made when they just added middle names or arabic text. I may be splitting hairs here, but I don't see a potentially incorrect addition of a middle name as rising to the level of presumptive negativeness that prompts me to revert it. Does that make sense? If not, tell me and I'll try again to explain my logic. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Civil Air Patrol

I have addressed your concerns at Talk:Civil Air Patrol/GA1. I hope the article now fully meets the criteria. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Super. I'll check it out a bit later tonight. I'm sure you've got it covered. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

rm. It - Wassila Assembly of God - deleted Pakistan press coverage section re a WAoG sermon

I am new and did not understand what "rm.lt" means in the edit reason you left. Why did you delete the press coverage section. All of the coverage I cite is about church sermons given after Palin left in 2002. I completely rewrote it to satisfy numerous objections, removing any POV and coathanger objection stuff, and no living person is mentioned. I did not even say which pastor gave the sermons being reported in the press and blogged on in the Middle East. Again, I am new, and I am the one who created the article in the first place, as my first Wikipedia article, so more explanatoin would be appreciated. EricDiesel (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric, the edit summary was a typo. I was going to type "It's still a WP:COATRACK", but missed the ' and hit return instead. I'm going to reply to the issues on the Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God page. Jclemens (talk)

OK, I am new, and this article was my first at Wikipedia, so I did not even know what a coatrack was. I still think it is appropriate to write Palin left the church in 2002, and most of the news stories on the sermons are for sermons after 2002, so she could not even have been there to have guilt by association. I tried to respond to Farix's coatrack comments by removing this fact, so Palin was not even mentioned in an exculpatory way.

• If you GoogleNews "Wasilla Assembly of God" AND "Hell", this gives a rough filter of stories that have content about the church sermons, since one of the sermons has the word. The church is also notable for Palin speaking their, and saying an allegedly controversial thing (I don't think it is all that controversial, personally) which parallels the controversial sermon getting all the blog and press activity in Pakistan and Iran. But Palin is also in the stories for other things, so the story titles are about Palin.

• Most importantly, I did NOT include references that just said she went to the church. I only included articles that had CONTENT about allegedly controversial statements made AT the church, which were consistent with church positions, or were statements of church positions.

Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• And precisely how many articles you cited had no mention of her whatsoever, hmm? Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Wasilla Assembly of God here

Why did you remove the information about Pastor Kalnins sermons? It was well sourced, by USA Today, and relevant to the beliefs of the church (He is listed as the senior pastor). You quoted WP:COATRACK which is not in fact an official Wikipedia policy but an essay, which it says need not be heeded. However, I see the core of that essay being a concern about POV and I do not see how my inclusion of factual, sourced information is POV. Please do not remove factual, sourced information from Wikipedia in the future. It could be considered WP:vandalism which is a violation of wikipedia policy. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for finishing off the delsort on Articles for deletion/Kingdom Now theology. I got distracted in the middle of it, and didn't get a chance to finish right away. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was my bad. I did the first half and forgot the second half. Thanks for YOU finishing what I didn't. :-) Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: User_talk:24.93.236.98

Thanks for the heads-up about this editor. Since the IP in question is obviously not dynamic, I went ahead issued a one month block. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help, and thanks again for helping keep Wikipedia clear of vandalism and original research! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy response to my report. I really appreciate the support. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the Bristol Bay article. Unfortuneately, it will probably be reverted again since we are dealing with a bad faith, militant user. I have dealt with this type here and in real life, so no biggie. Cheers! --Tom 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't mind reverting, but please do remember to WP:AGF yourself, too. Calling other people's edits bad faith, even if that ends up being true, can damage your credibility with uninvolved editors reviewing the case. It's also possible that consensus will change in the future, so don't get too invested in any one position. Unless it's really important, which I don't perceive this one to be. It's dumb and recentist to add trivia to Bristol Bay, but it fits in with some people's idea of what Wikipedia should be, strange though that may be. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Move or deletion of BlueHat

Greetings Jclemens,

I would like to invite you to comment on my proposal for the merger or deletion of the BlueHat with White hat article. Please comment on the WikiProject: Computing/Computer and Information Security task force Page. Thank You,

-Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You left me a message? Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

re "sorry for the accidentally truncated edit summary"

Thanks for the apology. I am new to Wikipedia, and am learning where things go and why, including the discussion page. I did not even know I had a discussion page when I started a few days ago. I am writing an essay on using the WP:Coatrack essay for making deletions, based on my experiences and comments by you and others. I am trying to make a formula for determining if a deletion is appropriate, and what to do to avoid conflict. Since you and I have had opposite views on this, you would be a good person to contribute edits to my essay. I posted it in the wrong place, so am requesting that it be put in the right place, which i do not yet know how to do. When it is correctly placed, I would appreciate your input. Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging me on this, Eric. Let me know once it's up and ready for review and I'll be happy to contribute my thoughts. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Essay regarding use of WP:COATRACk is here - Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions. I am a mathematician (and a former political cartoonist; I never lampooned anyone based on jokes based on humor), so I hope it is readable. Your suggestions are welcome, especially as we disagreed in the past, and I tried to incorporate what I learned from what you said. Thnx. EricDiesel (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've contributed some comments on the talk page for that essay. I'll continue to follow the discussion there if you'd like to respond there. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Since we again appear to be engaged in an edit war at Wasilla Assembly of God and I am at the point where I am losing the ability to assume you want to improve this article (instead of deleting it, which you tried to do along with every other article that has to do with Sarah Palin's religion, and removing interesting sourced information, which you continue to do), I suggest we do a formal WP:Rfc on the issue.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You've already stated that you did not believe my edits were good faith, so this statement from you is nothing new. I further agree with your characterization of your own edits as edit warring against consensus. I don't think an RfC is necessary; I've stated that 1) more editors can weigh in and clarify consensus, and 2) that the version I'm attempting to preserve is the consensus version, rather than my preferred version. Exactly what outcome do you hope to achieve and/or what clarity of insight do you hope to gain?

Out of curiosity, do you care to retract your previous assertions that I've been vandalizing the article? Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Against consensus? My edits? Hardly. I'm not surprised that you don't want to subject your actions here to wider scrutiny. Your repeated attempts to delete valid, notable and sourced information from being entered into Wasilla Assembly of God because you see them as being a WP:COATRACK of Ed Kalnins, an article that does not even exist partly because you voted to have it deleted, shows that you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of what wikipedia's policies for inclusion are, or you are making politically based, bad faith edits. After assuming good faith that you didn't know better for quite some time, I have now come to the conclusion that you are simply turning a blind eye to my arguments and are engaged in bad faith vandalism. However, I recognize my own fallibility and would prefer to open the issue up to a wider audience rather than edit war with you. I would also rather convince you rather than see you blocked. Although I consider you somewhat obstructionist, I also see you as a civil, intelligent editor who could make good editions to wikipedia if you wanted to. Obviously I do not care to retract the assertion you have been vandalizing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways--Either I'm a vandal, or I'm a good-faith editor who disagrees with you. Which is it? Either try and get me blocked for disagreeing with your interpretation of notability, or retract your earlier statements that my edits were vandalism. Pick one. I just suggest you read WP:VAND#NOT and WP:CIVIL#Engaging in incivility carefully first. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABILITY since that I believe is the first time I've seen you explicitly make that argument. Our conversation is about WP:COAT and WP:NOT#NEWS. Here's my reasoning: before you try to have someone blocked for vandalizing, you warn them about it first (unless it's particularly blatant) to ensure they know what they are doing is wrong, which I have done. Although I think the arguments you gave are illogical and based on a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, you at least made an argument, which I respect. That, I consider to be a mitigating circumstance and brought us to dispute respolution with WP:3O instead of me seeking to have you blocked. Believe me that if see you remove sourced, relevant material after my repeated warnings I will seek to have you blocked from editing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can't even figure out what vandalism is, I suggest you spend some time with WP:HUGGLE doing recent changes patrolling. Your non-retraction is less than confidence-inspiring. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is going nowhere except into personal attacks. Goodnight.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The only personal attacks in our interactions have been you accusing me of vandalism. If inviting you to rescind such is considered a personal attack (much like disagreeing with edits constitutes "vandalism") then I suppose I must be guilty of such, too. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war #2

I take exception to your deceptive (if self-evident) re-editing of the Wasilla Assembly talk page, to make it appear that I am responding to your critical comments, rather than the truth which is that I had "stated my biscuit" long before you chose to re-intervene. I offer you 24 hours to restore the page to an honest position before I do it for you, with full commentary. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about. I inserted a signed paragraph between two signed paragraphs of yours--the signatures show the dates. If you want to indent it so that the text is all scrunched up to the right, be my guest. If you don't want me to respond between your arguments when you post two, do not sign the first one. Please WP:AGF and be civil, rather than confrontational. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of outdenting, you might want to just use six colons there. It makes the timeline a little clearer.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hose strap

On 12 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hose strap, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Thanks also for putting together a more compelling hook than the one I had originally submitted. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Saving Private Ryan

Thanks for the GA review and pass! I have replaced the fact tags that you placed. Gary King (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I knew you would, hence the pass vs. putting it on hold for a bit. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes To Mythica

Hey, I wasn't vandalizing anything. It clearly states in WP:V that you need to verify your sources. It sounds like someone needs to brush up on their wikipedia knowledge. It's ok though, everyone makes mistakes. Don't worry about it! We're all just doing our best to make wikipedia a better place! CerburusStyx (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you really believe that an article is entirely unverifiable and should be deleted, please see WP:DELPROC. Summarily removing large amounts of content without consultation is often indistinguishable from vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

New editor repeatedly adding unsourced editorial

I was putting together a warning for 60.41.162.130 (talk), but you beat me to it (edit conflict). Not only did this editor add the same material 3 times in about as many hours to Sun Myung Moon, he also added it to Unification Church, List of Unification Church affiliated organizations (self-reverted), and Divine Principle. About a day earlier new editor User:Erstekrieg composed (apparently) and added the same material 3 times within one day (along with some vandalism and personal attacks), and was warned on his talk page 3 times. It may well be the same user. I'm just mentioning all this because you seem to be more well-versed in the appropriate course of action than I am. -Exucmember (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just using WP:HUGGLE and reverting all the vandals who come through. I think he's going to be blocked. I'm tempted to apply for admin tools just so I can block stupid vandals... (sigh) Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should. You're an excellent editor, you know the ropes very well (you know them far better than I do, and a former bureaucrat suggested I apply over a year ago!), you have a cool head even in the face of the most contentious and Machiavellian that can be found on Wikipedia (well, perhaps not infinite patience), and you have a good sense for what's appropriate as opposed to a Wikilawyering, letter-of-the-law over of spirit-of-the-law, "small picture" approach. The only way it would fail would be because of cabal opposition (if there is any) based on political maneuvering rather than proper considerations. -Exucmember (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not sure I want the responsibility. My primary goal at this point is to get a WP:CROWN, and fighting vandals detracts me from getting a featured content credit to my name. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

I just saw this edit you made using Huggle. Don't know if you were going a bit too fast and not paying attention or if you're just a little tired, but I thought I'd let you know of this error. Useight (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what happened there--you definitely caught something not right. Thanks for the heads up. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I got your back. Useight (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Zinfandel

Zinfandel looks much better. Can you say yet the outcome of its GAN? --Una Smith (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I've seen the changes zipping by in my watchlist. I'll give it another look today. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Edits

Hey Jclemens,

Simply reverting those edits will not work. Eventually, Cdog is correct and your edits will be deemed vandalism. We need to work towards finding an appropriate way to present the information that is making Wasilla an issue. It is in the news. We need to frame how/why, not deny that fact.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look closely at the two sets of edits I reverted today, neither were Cdog's. Both were completely separate issues--Ronnotel wanted to remove the section entirely, and EricDiesel wanted to replace the section with a completely separate take on it. Neither one brought it to talk first. In other words, WP:BRD is functioning properly here. I absolutely reject EricDiesel's new iteration as containing the single worst coatrack sentence I've seen in this article to date ("In September 2008, the church received national and international attention for its methods of funding travel expenses for commencement speakers and for the content of controversial sermons. A reporter for the Anchorage Daily News reported that the church failed to pay travel expenses for it’s 2008 Masters Commission commencement speaker, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin; the travel expenses were instead paid for by Alaskan taxpayers."), but I'll be happy to go back to an earlier version. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re - Your comments on The burden of action... on WP:Coatrack Deletions

The main problem I see with this essay so far is that it places the burden of action on the remover, which is contrary to accepted Wikipedia practice. Check out WP:BURDEN. One of the reasons that exists is it should always be easier to keep out bad stuff than put bad stuff in. If the equation is reversed, then the vandals crapping all over wikipedia win, and I don't think Coatracks are a particular exception. If a good faith editor gets a reasonable edit summary or talk page note as part of the process, s/he should be able to take concrete action on that basis.

Very good point. I should modify things to stress that a reason to do the extra work on making sure the info is in article B is that it might be less of a burden to move the info than to get in an edit war or go back and forth arguing. And that nothing I have written is a requirement, only an etiquette to aim for. EricDiesel (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A second issue I see is that coats and coatracks aren't as differentiated as you make them out to be. Saying "It's a coat" or "It's a coatrack" are essentially the same argument, and I don't think a consistent and precise usage of "this is a coat" vs "this is a coatrack" has emerged.

Yes, I noticed the usage is not consistent as you say. I used the accepted definition, and tried to make things more precise, so that debates can be resolved with precision, consistent with the definition. EricDiesel (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A final point that I believe damages your essay is splitting hairs about policies vs. guidelines vs. essays. The "X is only a guideline!" argument is liable to fall on deaf ears, since guidelines exist as guidelines because of community consensus that they are good ideas. Essays that are widely quoted and agreed upon are likely to be promoted to guidelines in the future, and guidelines that lack consensus for exceptions become policies. I speak from personal experience--I think I've lost every single argument I made with an appeal to the status of a document, such as "WP:FRINGE is a guideline just like WP:RS is!"

Again, you are right here. It is even worse than splitting hairs, since it assumes that a policy has some godlike status, when in fact policies are just a matter of consensus, too. I had not really thought of your point, and included that section becase I saw so many people making the argument, and wanted to include everything everyone said. I think the essay might be better eliminating the section altogether, but I am keeping it in for now only because it was an idea contributed by others. Do you think I should modify the section to put in a statement that this is not a very good argument, or just delete the sectinos altogether? EricDiesel (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, hope that helps. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit War #3

Please stop deleting content. I restored the extensive content of Ballonman's contribution that you deleted, in your most recent revert of this content, after being warned not to by balloonman. I note that you are having similar problems with other editors. You must stop deleting everyone's contributions. This will get you blocked. EricDiesel (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to delete content that is not properly sourced. The content I deleted this morning blatantly mischaracterized the source on which it was based. Remember, the WP:BURDEN is on you if you want to include content. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE - "User:Jclemens reported by User:EricDiesel" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

"User:Jclemens reported by User:EricDiesel" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs) 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For completeness' sake, this was closed as "No Violation" by User:EdJohnston Jclemens (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

While the motivation for the topic of the straw poll will be a no-brainer to anyone who understands what this project is about (and respects same), I wanted to commend you for bringing it up for discussion on the talkpage in a formalized way, rather than gutting the section (I was tempted myself...). If the topic of the article itself was a living person, then even this discretion would be unnecessary. But as the topic, in itself, isn't, you have avoided unnecessary drama by doing that. I wanted you to know I noticed and appreciated that. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate positive feedback like that. Of course, I've also just gotten reported to AN/3RR (without merit, of course) for my various efforts to keep that page to a minimum of cruft, so I may be being a bit more cautious than usual today. :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain-Palin Supporter

I'm sorry if you thought my calling you a McCain Palin supporter was a personal attack... far from it. It was merely observing that your edits tend to be strongly in favor of getting rid of anything critical of Palin. Eric, likewise, appears to be an Obama supporter, his edits are very inflamitory. While I am a McCain-Palin supporter, I do believe this issue deserves coverage. The Church is so not-notable that it isn't even funny. I mean, it's two biggest claims to fame, outside of the Palin tie, are an annual concert that attracts a 1000 teenagers and collecting 39 baskets for a food drive? Leaving it as an article for WAoG is not, IMO, an option. Nobody cares about Winterfest!

The ONLY reason people are paying ANY attention to the Church is because of the Huffington Post making an issue out of some select sermons---which in my opinion probably misrepresent what was actually said. Unfortunately, the HP has succeeded... it has created a news story out of her church. Wikipedia has two options: 1) ignore the reality of the situation and pretend that WAoG has almost 80,000 Google hits because of it's own inherent notability or 2) try to cover the issue in as fair and balanced manner as possible. I'm striving for the later, while I think you are pushing for the former. I think your approach is wrong, because the Church as garnered notability via Palin.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I really owe you an apology for that. I read your comment like it came from EricDiesel, and should have been better at assuming good faith. My apologies for my unnecessarily prickly reaction.

On the topic of ignoring current issues.... It seems like WP:NOT#NEWS is no longer really Wikipedia policy. We seem to build encyclopedia articles on the fly, using today's major news sources. Philisophically, I don't like that. While there may be no deadline, it might be good to have a myopic threshold--e.g., any source less than a month old cannot be added to Wikipedia--to enforce it. It really would make a lot of these partisan arguments and hopefully move them to WikiNews, and let us take a longer view and create less ephemeral articles. But the tide of opinion does not seem to be moving my way. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted... I agree, NotNews doesn't seem to matter as much as it used to---which is why a lot of articles, which are on hot topics, get deleted after a few months when the news dies down. There was a baggage handler who had an article for several months after a terrorist attack whose first AFD survived because of demonstratable off-wiki blogging. It was later, after the hype died down, deleted. Personally, it wouldn't surprise me if this gets deleted after the election, but in the meantime we have to work with what we have. For some reason, I've gotten myself involved with this article. (And I hate getting involved with political topics.) What really surprises me is that my latest edits have been accused of being "aimed directly at Sarah Palin." I was expecting the exact opposite accusation... in fact, my incredulity over the "warlike" attitude of Jesus, was because the premise is so missing the point that the HP showed, IMHO, malicious or incompetent coverage of the sermon.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bunnies & Burrows GA Review

Just wanted to point out that you haven't transcluded your GA review onto the talk page of this article. I was about to do it myself, but thought that you might not actually be done with your comments so didn't want to jump the gun. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the deference, but it would have been fine if you'd gone ahead and done it, as it looks like someone else went ahead and did it while I was asleep. Thanks, though! Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008-reply

Thanks for your message. Sorry if I acted hastily. Perhaps the separate Beliefs section is better. I'm concerned by the assertion by another editor that the WSJ is not a reliable source. I've added refs from AG sources which support the statements. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he may have inserted too many weasel words as well, but the fact is, the WSJ quote came over from Wasilla Assembly of God, and I appreciate the fact that it got some context added to it. It may have been too much, but I'd rather see it toned down than simply reverted. I also think the lead placement is probably too aggressive--I'd like to see it maybe summarized in the lead, but most of the details of what differentiates an Assemblies of God church from a generic protestant church should probably go in the belief section.

Reverting me and calling my reversion POV wasn't really helpful to civil discourse. I really don't care all that much about the topic, but I was trying to exercise WP:BRD in pursuit of a better article. "Templating the regulars" might not have been the best response I could have chosen, but I didn't think it appropriate to revert your reversion. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for this reversion of vandalism on my user page. Best, ~ Troy (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. But don't thank me, thank User:Gurch for WP:Huggle :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK 24/9

On 24 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thermal imaging camera, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Ken Lerner Adam Busch Parent show Robin Sachs Deuces Wild Echolalia Mercedes McNab Christopher Masterson Cryptovirology Naruto Firehose Hinton Battle Glen Buxton Slim Thug University of Texas Health Center at Tyler Old One Alex Dimitriades Zimri Vertebrate

Cleanup Power-on self-test Proton pack Kristy Swanson Merge Unification Movement AOL Wilderness first aid Add Sources Sunnydale High Dhani Harrison The Bronze Wikify Holy Cross Convent School Dave Graney Eugene Nelson Expand York Community High School Visvaldas Mažonas Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin, GA

Hi JClemens. I'm sure you know far better than I the general process of promoting an article to GA status (that whole thing was invented or at least popularized after I went through my WP:FA and WP:PR phase and I never really got back into it). I guess I wanted to ask you your view on Palin - of course I understand that stability is a GA criterion, but as one of the editors of that (very contentious) article, I am also aware that about 95% of it is stable - the sections from the intro through her more recent political career don't really change substantially at this point. The sections pertaining to the election of course are dynamic, but that is also true of some featured articles and other good articles. I think that in comparison with the bulk of wiki articles, the Palin article is fairly comprehensive, definitely well-sourced, and has a bunch of good images. Given that, I wonder if you would take a second look. Of course, it isn't really an emergency to accomplish this, and maybe your comment to wait until after the election is the only reasonable answer, but I'm saying I think you may have overestimated the degree of instability. I probably underestimate it :) - in any case, thanks for your time. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The way I interpret GA criteria may be substantially different than the way another editor does. Compared to the other articles that come to GA, Palin is at the 95th (or higher) percentile for contentiousness. Contentiousness is different than vandalism, of course, but the general rule I've been working with is that any semi- or full-protected article is not ready for a GA review. Palin has been semi-protected for a relatively long time. I see Biden was promoted to GA after his selection as VP, so I may be wrong. Please open a GA Review on the topic--I don't object to being overruled, since it seems like my interpretation of consensus may not be universal. I look forward to the opportunity to bring this discussion to more editors for a wider consensus. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Muthee

Thank you. Yeah, I'm backing off this one for awhile to see about cleaning up others. This whole gig started because the article was up for deletion on the basis of: no cites, messy, POV, and Coatrack. So I tried to fix it, and here we are. Heh. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 16:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

For your information, a related issue has been brought up as at WP:WQA#N00b query, where I've given appropriate advice. In my opinion. . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for bringing that to my attention. For others who may be reading this later, User:FangedFaerie wasn't involved in the dispute that led to someone filing a WQA--she just happened to have been the primary editor on the main article on that topic. Jclemens (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, didn't mean to imply any involvement, and my apologies for not checking to see if you're an admin. Hypothetically it would perhaps have been a good idea to start with a level 3 warning, and it would hypothetically have been a failure to assume good faith on my part if I'd thought that a hypothetical complainant was fishing for ammunition in a hypothetical argument with you. Hope that's all cleared up now! . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave, had there been no history and no ongoing previous reversions, I definitely would have started with a level3. As was, I was perhaps a little frustrated with what seemed like blatant disregard for BLP, as well as the editor in question calling my edit summary "untruthful." Even given that, your recommendation is probably sound. blp4im was probably an escalation, warranted or not. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'd not gone into the situation enough to judge. I've often been tempted to skip the gradual escalation of warnings, but usually think that level 3 serves to allow an immediate block if the bad behaviour is repeated, while level 4 looks a little silly if it's not followed up. Of course it's still required when all else fails. BLP does need a judgement call and discussion to reach consensus about the validity of sources, but I'm sure you know that better than I do. By the way, the hypothetical discussion at WQA was quite amusing, hope it countered any hypothetical bad advice ;) . . dave souza, talk 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Message for you

Please respond here[7]. Tautologist (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. FYI, the Talkback template didn't work for me, so I removed it. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes Patrolling

Make sure that whomever you pester with notes on their talk pages be the correct person. I added a reference to a Chang Feng SMG, and yet you posted a note on my talk page. I have a feeling you intended that for someone else, as my edit still stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.253.130 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my error was that your IP made the version I reverted to, not the inappropriate edit. Sorry about that; I've removed the inappropriate warning from your talk page and placed it on the correct one. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.253.130 (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

House episodes

Of course I'm interested, but I don't have much time right now, I'm open during the weekend. But of course I'm interested. Thanks for the offer.--Music26/11 16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: If you're interested in house articles, you can join the House WikiProject.

Talkback!

(removed talkback template) Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 12:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This IP address is a proxy server for a Fortune 100 corporation. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one:

User page revert

Thanks :). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah

Nice job on reverting the vandalism on OJ Simpson - I just randomly saw it there while searching through articles and was myself about to revert it. :D Master&Expert (Talk) 06:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, you beat me to reversion. Keep up the good work. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 06:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your detailed and informed review of History of early Christianity. I sincerely appreciate it. Sometime in the next week, I will undertake the nuts and bolts edits needed, as well as address some of your concerns. I will also certainly take you up on your offer of assistance when I get down to brass tacks on the article. Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Could you take a look over Apostolic Age and provide a bit of feedback about what needs to be done to help bring that article up to GA standards? Given your review of the "parent" article, I would greatly value your opinion. Vassyana (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It may take me a day or two to get to it with any time to sit down and contemplate it, but I will. I'm thinking Tuesday evening may be the earliest. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, go ahead and nominate it for GA, and I'll just do a full GA workup on it. There's no penalty for a failed GA--failed GA's that people have worked on often make the best candidates because the reviewer knows a bunch of the trivial stuff has already been fixed. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do! There's no shame in a failed GA or FA nom. If the review process works as intended, a failed nomination should result in valuable feedback. We're all here to improve the wiki and getting good suggestions for improvement should be seen as helpful, not as an insult. Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The GA review for Apostolic Age is certainly a good general road map towards the GA goal. Thank you for taking the time to look over it and comment, it is truly appreciated. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Glad that you find it helpful, and don't hesitate to ask if any of my recommendations are unclear. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tokyo Tower

Yes I did. Here it is. I couldn't figure out how to get the template to show the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikTheBikeMan (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The issue was you put the whole pathname in there, when all it needed was "1". I fixed it for you. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work!

Nice work on reverting some of the vandalism! You're quicker reverting it than I am! :) Keep up the good work! --masterjamie 05:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your input is sincerely appreaciated.  :) BOZ (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the offer - I have responded on the project talk page. What's the best way to get started? BOZ (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the project page. Short answer: Nominate any you think meet up with WP:GAN as far as you can tell, and leave me a note when you do. I've got the D&D page on my watchlist, so no need to notify me both here and there, just pick one. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gary Gygax article updated and updating for the GA if you are interested, or however the process works in case you want to make changes to the GA review as things progress. The plaque inscription is now a part of the caption for it. Thanks for help get this article improved. shadzar-talk 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I have the page watchlisted, and am following things as you go. Every couple of days I try and do a re-review of the article with fresh eyes, and will add new comments as appropriate. Keep up the good work! :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Misty Copeland

You may review Misty Copeland now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I plan on getting to this tonight. Thanks for keeping me appraised of your progress. Jclemens (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive review. I need reviewers like you to make me look good. IMO, this belongs with the other GAs now, but there is of course room for improvement. I hope you agree.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Given your extensive recent editing activity, you may have missed my previous note here. Thus, I am just letting you know I am ready for review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd been waiting for another note, sorry about that. I'll get you another review tonight. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mounted search and rescue

Thank you for your fact tags on Mounted search and rescue. That helps enormously. --Una Smith (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I watchlisted Wikiproject Fire service, and giving my opinion is far less work than a lot of other things that need doing on Wikipedia. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

I did read them after I started major revisions. My latest edit includes Joel Connelly's blog so I don't dispute you on that point. I did update the majority of the blogs with actual newspaper articles, however, only because I felt they fleshed out the subject better. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In Dino Rossi, Cumulus carefully and completely undid the entire fixing I did <b<in conformance with your recomendations. Every iota of current news was excised, and the MArch polls reinserted. I have now excused the out-of-date stuff, and the article is NPOV for a year ago ,aybe, if one is a Gregoire supporter. For any real encyclopedia, it is castrated totally. I recommend you do the fixing now -- CC is following me all across WP. Collect (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ergh. I really don't want to get in the middle of a fight between the two of you, as I've worked with you both in different contexts and really don't want to choose sides. I'd encourage you to keep talking to him, looking for common ground, and using WP:DR if the process fails. WP:3O isn't really for etiquette issues, but for content/policy disagreements, and it sounds like you think that's crossed the line at this point. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to note CC is now actually stalking me -- finding every political article in which I made edits and reverting them with warnings that he will drive me off WP. (2 articles is coincidence, I suppose. More is not) I find his conduct objectionable, and walked away from Rossi, which is now about the worst article on WP (sigh) Can you possibly deal with the edits? I do not want any contact with CC after his repeated "warnings." Many thanks! Collect (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• You followed me to Charles Keating and I think it's fair to assess your contributions to determine your bias. You've inserted a very clear conservative slant into every article you've touched. Your edits to Sarah Palin make this abundantly clear. You've met or violated 3RR on most of the articles you've been to and if you violate that protocol you will most definitely be blocked from editing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've never used the dispute resolution processes (WP:DR) myself, so I'm really not going to be too much help in guiding you through them. My advice is to remember that real life matters more than Wikipedia, so feel free to take a break from the contentious articles, and go visit some completely different part of Wikipedia. Take a look at my contributions--I do a variety of things. When I get too frustrated over a contentious topic, I go spend time contributing in an entirely different area. I certainly hope you are able to disengage from the negative interactions and find a comfortable place to contribute here. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I'd encourage both of you to sit down and have a cup of WP:TEA and discuss how you can collaborate to make Wikipedia better, rather than each seeking to demonstrate your own rightness. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked CC to "disengage." I followed no one anywhere, I followed a link from an article I was editing. If you look, you will find me active in such partisan subjects as the Dime ... I am a "fact person" by training. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I took TEA. I also use AGF. You might want to give a 3O for Charles Keating which CC has now issued dire threats on. He appears to think trying to use English grammar is wrong, and that cites do not need to contain the facts asserted to be in them. Merci. Collect (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

CC editwarring

CC is now editwarring in Billy James Hargis, Charles Keating and Dino Rossi all at once, and contrary to your 3O on Dino. He specifically is charging me with "vandalism" (see my talk page to see how many "warnings" he has emitted) and refuses to discuss anything on the Talk pages. Thank you. Collect (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, who else have you contacted about this? I'm not an administrator, so all I can do is provide opinions on things--I can issue warnings, but can't block anyone. It sounds like you really need the help of an experienced administrator. Looks like CC was blocked back in June for edit warring, and he's not an administrator, though he's been around since 2006. Oh, interesting: you're not the only person having problems with him. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cumulus_Clouds. I think if you read that page, you may get some sympathy and/or guidance on how to deal with him. Failing that, you might find some people to comiserate with. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to get anyone blocked -- I just want an "honest broker" -- he is an expert Wikilawyer by now. If you simply give a look at the pages, give your honest opinions on the nature of his edits, I think that may be more productive than playing his game. His game is "editwar" and warnings. My game is simply trying to use facts. Maybe I am too naive, but those other guys are still around and CC will overstep at some point. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. I've had run-ins before with really contentious editors who didn't violate the rules, but were completely unhelpful--he'd nominate an article for deletion, and then nitpick and fact tag everything that was added to the article; it was really frustrating. Having said that, what makes you think I'm some sort of magical mediator? I tried to be a neutral third party and didn't end up being effective in your case before, so what makes you think I can actually help here? Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

CC was semi-polite to you, I thought. I don;t think Walla would do as well. CC, by the way, has been caught violating rules (sigh). Collect (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• The request for comment was closed as an unproductive personal attack by one party. I elected not to file a counter RFC because I did not want to prolong that conflict, but from reading it anyone would get the impression that I acted appropriately. I do not and will not tolerate biased edits being made to promote politicians on this encyclopedia. Collect has clearly engaged in POV editing and has done so for his entire career here. His account goes inactive after election day in the United States and only reactivates in the months leading up to an election. It's not difficult to surmise, therefore, that his only interest is in the promotion of politicians. I will continue to remove any edits that are promotional or nonneutral in any way of any candidate and I would expect anyone else to do the same. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  Cumulus Clouds, nothing I stated was a personal attack in any way. Unless you have evidence to back that up, I request a retraction on your comment. An RFC is, by definition, not a personal attack. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? "2007" is "partisan"? Your claims about my account are false. Your claims that I only edit partisan articles is false. In short, you are engaging in stalking, and that is true. Thank you most kindly. (Waiting for him to say "Dimes" are partisan!) Collect (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• You only started to make noncontroversial edits to articles like that after you were called out for your posting spree over at Talk:Sarah Palin. It's not uncommon for editors to try to hide their bias by engaging in sudden editing sprees on unrelated articles. In the past two weeks, you've tried to whitewash Dino Rossi, remove sourced information, insert biased poll numbers and statistics and removed significant amounts of language on Charles Keating to obscure John McCain's relationship. It's pretty clear that you've got an agenda and eventually you will be blocked if you continue to make partisan edits. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And now you are littering Jclemens page? The one whose 3O you junked? And you are threatening me? Sheesh! Collect (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. Cumulus Clouds, if it's not obvious to you already, it should be by now: the way you interact with some other people is perceived as negative and uncivil. You have a choice: ignore it, or take some input from that fact. I, too, encounter people who don't like the way I do things. Some feedback I completely ignore--like that from vandals I revert--while other feedback I evaluate... some of it is useful, others is not. For example, I learned a lot about the processes by having them used "against" me, but at the same time there are people who just get offended by the evenhanded and civil application of policies. Not much I can do for the latter set. Even if the RfC against you was closed as unactionable, it's still a data point.

Collect, here's a bit of personal advice from me: Learn to manage personality conflicts without outside intervention. I've made it a personal goal to use dispute resolution process as little as possible. The outcome is far likely to be positive if I can develop the perspective and communication skills to come to terms with editors who seem to be diametrically opposed to my position, rather than given to outside parties.

I sincerely hope that my statements are helpful to each of you. Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I have handled several thousand "problem users" over the years (over two decades in fact) and CC is in the top 1%. Collect (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology and Accusatoins of Partisanship

• I apologize for reporting your deletions previously. It appears that you were objecting to my use of "witch hunter", thinking I meant it figuratively, not literally, and that you thought I should obviously knew what portion of my edits you found objectionable. I, on the other hand, had no idea that this was the particular BLP issue you were talking about, thinking you were objecting to comething else.

• You may find it interesting that I have been accused of being a "pro Palin partisan", such as here[8]! My position is that any and all factual information, that bears on the subject of the article, should be in an encyclopedia article, even if it could be used by partisan encyclopedia users or researchers. I noticed that you have not objected to my proposals for Wasilla Assembly of God, now that they are properly sourced and directly relate to the church via its speakers, insofar as it relates to what was said at the church, or if it is related to what was said at the church by its invited speakers, or said about the church or about its speakers. So we appear to be in agreement. I more fully state my positoin here[9]. Tautologist (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As far as that WAoG stuff, I've really not reviewed your proposals. Aside from the other things I have been doing on Wikipedia, I've been a bit too busy with RL stuff to want to dive back into that topic. Thankfully, most everyone else seems to have lost interest as well. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Italian supercentarians

Coudl you re-visit the Afd? I find your oppose inactionable, thanks. —Ceran [speak] 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum

Stifle, if Wikipedia is not a democracy, why did you close the subj AfD as no consensus when it clearly has no independent, reliable sources and fails WP:MOVIE? I'd like to understand your reasoning, as I'm inclined to take this one to DRV, but don't want to look like an idiot if you had an unarticulated reason for the closure. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

There really was no consensus. Lack of references is a reason for improvement, not deletion, and the AFD participants did not agree that it failed WP:MOVIE. You're welcome to DRV it, of course, but I think you might be better off relisting it next month if it hasn't improved. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I followed the links to discuss other admin actions--sorry if that was the wrong place to put it.

Per discussion at Talk:Zeitgeist:_Addendum#Deletion_discussion_closed_as_no_consensus, two other editors disagree with your assessment of consensus. I think the crux of the disagreement is that "keep and improve" !votes simply ignored the fact that there are no reliable sources in the article and had no realistic remedy, and that your considering their non-policy-based objections violated WP:PRACTICAL. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God Biography of Living Persons?

I see that you placed a BLP template on the Wasilla Assembly of God talkpage. This is not a person, this is an organization. Does the BLP extend to organizations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltwin (talk • contribs) 23:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Any article can attract controversial, defamatory, or insufficiently sourced articles about people. Wikipedia's BLP policy applies everywere--regardless of what sort of article. If The BLP template is just a reminder, and can go on any article. If I put defamatory material info about Bill Gates into the Microsoft article, it's still just as off limits as if I put it in the Bill Gates article. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

see User Talk:Lar

Probably 'nuff said, but I am being libeled, and you might be as well. Collect (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the barnstar! Such a nice surprise to see pop up on my talk page! It has been interesting to take a run through the range of articles that you have been reviewing...your initial reviews seem to be thorough, focused and well-done. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to look at things I've put into second opinion status any time--I can't think of an article that wouldn't be served by your review. About 1 of 10 reviews I do, I just can't seem to communicate the changes I see as needed, and thus get myself too involved in making improvements to be objective and see what work remains. Oh, and the barnstar was well-deserved. I give them sparingly. :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know you're right

I just felt like he was disrespecting everyone whos trying to make the article work and be good. Did you look at my proposal for a new article outline?Ltwin (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep--already commented on it. It looks good--good idea to focus on positive improvements when things are getting under your skin. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God

I understand your point, but the condescension won't help anything. There is no need to talk down to him, even if you think that his mistake was obvious. If you want to improve the article your best option is to teach Tautologist, not anger him. Plasticup ^T/C 03:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Realize that you're coming in late in an interaction that has extended for multiple weeks. Feel free to review the talk page archives and AfD discussion if you want to get a bit more historical perspective. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have skimmed it, and I appreciate your frustration. Infinite patience is a tall order, but maybe we can give it one more shot. Plasticup ^T/C 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Attempted, with disappointing results. Sigh. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 Computing articles

Hello - I'm asking everyone listed at the Computer and Information Security task force to take a look at a posting from the Wikipedia 0.7 CD release. What articles aren't there but should be? Thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

BARNSTAR!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your efforts in turning Wasilla Assembly of God from a coatrack to a more-readable article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition. It's nice to be recognized for things that are normally thankless. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for your kind words! The GA nomination was entirely unexpected. I am fairly new to wikipedia...just a couple of months...and have been focused on trying to get all of the Stubs and Starts in the Emergency Medicine and EMS Task Force up to more respectable 'B's. Thanks for pushing this forward, for the copyediting etc.,and for the recognition! Perhaps we'll get the opportunity to work together again on something else at some point! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly would look forward to it. The best way to learn the ropes around here is to walk them with someone else who knows what they're doing. It took me a couple of months of trying to get my first article to GA status... Now, I've accumulated three more in a few weeks without hardly trying--Good Samaritan law is #4 for me. Another editor and I are struggling to get an article to Featured status--the requirements for FA dwarf GA--and really are struggling there to make it through our first time without a mentor. So, feel free to ping me on anything you need help with, and I'll see what I can do. Then, before long, you'll not need me anymore, and you can start training newer editors. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The "quick-failing" of Xgrid

I noticed you "quick-failed" Xgrid, an article that I have made significant contributions to "due to sourcing". Would you be able to elaborate on this so I can know what is wrong with the article's sourcing. It should be also noted that when it was previously (and fully) reviewed by miranda she never mentioned anything wrong with the sourcing, just some style issues that I was unable to rectify in time due to IRL problems. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this decision may not be inline with good article criteria (in that 1) reliable sources is a guideline and not policy and 2) the GAC states that reliable sources are only a requirement direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons) and that these individual sources are reliable enough for the situation. Subsequently, I have started will be starting a good article review relating to the article. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's certainly your right. But if you wanted to work collaboratively on it, you could improve the references and I'll be happy to review it again. I think that's more likely to result in it being passed than a GAR, which seems to suffer from a general lack of interest. Nothing personal on the fail, and I do hope you succeed one way or the other. If you want me to step out of being a reviewer and start being a collaborator, I can search for RS'es for you--I have access to EBSCOHost and ProQuest--but if I start participating in the article I obviously can't review it for you again. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if you could find some more RS'es for the article as you have access to EBSCOHost and ProQuest (which I sadly don't) as the sources in the article are the only ones I could find on the general internet, which I thought would be enough. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right--it's pretty slim pickings out there, but not completely absent. I've got one MacWorld, two InfoWorld, and one Mainframe Computing... along with five false positives. That's incredibly low for an Apple product, but so be it. I'll get them added to the article in the next day or two and go ahead and check the rest of the article against GA criteria, so hopefully next time will be smooth sailing. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, turns out all four RS references were right around Xgrid's launch, so they've all gone into one paragraph. Feel free to edit what I've added. I'm going to put the GA nom back and mark it for a second opinion. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thankyou for all your help. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't give you more feedback in the beginning. Good luck finishing up what items remain--I think you've done about all that can be done for a pretty narrow and specific article, which is precisely what GA was designed to recognize. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has passed the GA process, thanks for all your help. Happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Thanks for the 3RR heads up. I was going to revert it. Thanks for reverting it. inigmatus (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I do encourage you to keep engaged on the talk page--in my mind, a "fact" tag in the lead is going to be more confusing and disruptive to readers than an assertion we agree is at least partially correct. Trying to boil down hundreds of years of religious controversy into one or two succinct paragraphs is always a challenge. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am curious though if it is consistent to only source "Christian movement" out of the source's "Jewish/Christian movement" phrase - that such a half-cite is more of a cut-paste POV push than a consistent, accurate cite consistent with Wikistandards. I think the article would be happier if the source either changed or "religious movement" returned since that was the consensus opinion well before Avi changed it to "Christian movement" last week without consensus. inigmatus (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Christian nature of MJ doesn't really need sourcing, actually. That is, it is so obvious and generally uncontested (to the extent that anything in Christian/Jewish relations ever CAN be!) as some of the other editors have pointed out. Not calling it Christian seems POV one way, as does calling it Christian/Jewish POV in different way, so Christian seems the least bad option--better than simply "religious". Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's the whole point: If calling it Christian is POV, and calling it Jewish is POV, then calling it "religious" is as NPOV as you can get - the best of all "bad options", and instead just let the article flesh out the details. It's not "obvious" that it's "Christian" - because the definition for "Christian" is used differently by different people. By the non-Messianic Jews, it defines someone who believes a man is God and engages in idol worship. By Messianic Jews it defines someone who engages in pagan forms of worship, and belief in a trinitarian god. By Christians it means someone who believes Jesus is the Messiah excluding Mormons, and JWs. So then its not "obvious" its Christian except per the definition one wants to use. A believer that Jesus is the Messiah, and that he is the Word of HaShem does not mean they believe in a man who is God, or worship God using pagan forms of worship. The complexities of views concerning who is a "Christian" is what makes removing such a definition from the article lead necessary. inigmatus (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "Christian" has a pretty clear consensus definition in common usage, much like "water" or "sunlight"--both can have more specific technical descriptions, but both are used by most people in a very consistent way that doesn't consider the nuances where common usage may be disputed or even contradicted by formal scientific use. It's in that sense that I believe it is appropriately used in the lead. Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Trout award

Might wanna have a look at this - seems someone doesn't like trout... :) TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. I've never trout'ed anyone without User:Lucasbfr/Admin open to trout slapping prominently displayed. Actually, come to think of it, I've never WP:TROUT'ed anyone before. Oh well, first time for everything. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome. :) I'm glad to help out on various games and comics articles. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for what you did with Illuminati (game). It reads a lot better now with more sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

James Dobson

Hi, I noticed you took an interest in the article. Would you be interested in helping me drive it to GA/FA status? I think there's plenty of material to work with, but I don't think any one editor can do justice to a BLP of a person who inspires such diverse feelings. Interested? Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid my emotions might interfere with my efforts, though I can try to lend a hand. DOn't be afreaid to offer constructive critism of my edits.Kairos (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No editor should ever be compelled to do work on an article they find emotionally draining. I've been looking for an LGBT editor who's willing to partner with me on this for a while; it can certainly wait longer. My goal is to ultimately have an FA on Dobson in place by the time he dies, which it needs to accurately capture the man so many revere and so many revile--tough job! BTW, I agree with taking the homosexuality debate material out of Dobson's article--there are plenty of other places it can go. At any rate, if you change your mind, the offer stands. As is, the article sucks a lot less than when I started working with it, and I've tried to be fair to proponents and critics alike, but one person has so many more blind spots than two. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So I moved everything here. Now, it seems that this artijcle is part of 3 or 4 different wikiprojects (WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Church of the Nazarene, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject LGBT studies) which coudl help. All of them rate it B class. I suggest baby steps. I would think about what it will take to get this article up to the next higher quality rating(I think that's a Good class article but can't remember) and then work on getting all three wiki projects to agree that it's that rating. And then work on gettting into the next highest rating for all threee or four groups and so forth. IF you want to bounce ideas back and forth then feel free to do so.Kairos (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Of the Wikiprojects you mention, only LGBT studies is likely to bring a cultural perspective markedly different from my own. I'm not a member of any of the wikiprojects per se but Biography won't have a particular cultural perspective, and the Christianity or Nazarene (which is a subordinate project) won't bring any substantially new viewpoints. What I really need is a good LGBT studies editor who's interested in biographies as well. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

ping

Heya. :) When you have a moment, could we get a Gygax status update? It's probably not quite done yet, but I'm hoping it's closer to done than not. BOZ (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I will have a review for you tonight. I've noticed pretty much constant activity, hence me staying quiet. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I had a busy day yesterday, but then I always stop to see if anyone else has anything to add before doing something else.  :) BOZ (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I've taken care of the "longbio" sourcing problem as best as I'm likely to without finding the actual original source. I need a break. ;) BOZ (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help. :) I have moved on to my next nomination (no sense in waiting is there?); Wizards of the Coast may be more of a challenge since it is mostly unreferenced, but we'll see. BOZ (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. :) Had a chance to look over the WotC GA nom? BOZ (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't. I don't have a whole lot of experience with WotC as an RPG manufacturer, but I'll see what I can do. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem - you could leave that one up to someone else to review? I was also going to nom Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms (both of which also need a lot of work); if you are more familiar with either or both of those I could nom one of them. I've decided that Drow would be way too much work for me to try to get to GA right now. :) So WotC, DR, and FR, were about as far as I wanted to go on RPG/D&D articles for now, and I was going to move on to comics articles next (there are also a lot more people willing to work on comics articles than there are for RPG articles, so that would help). BOZ (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just a thought though; maybe it would make more sense to look into getting them peer reviewed instead, since all of these are probably pretty far from GA? That way, I can leave them for other people to hopefully work on, and then come back to them in the future. BOZ (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

ping. :) BOZ (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I picked up and looked at WotC, but it's going to need much the same treatment as Gygax. Just from a 30 second review, it's going to need all of its lists converted substantially into prose, or broken out into a separate article. I'll get you more detailed comments later tonight, most likely. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I'll stop bugging you now.  ;) BOZ (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note, "Stop Dragging My Car Around" is most definitely a parody of the Stevie Nicks/Tom Petty duo - it just needs to be sourced. :) BOZ (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylon 5's use of the Internet

Want to help me cleanup and save another B5 article? Yes.

I will look at this in more detail tonight. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, same editor nom'ed The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 for deletion, too. Someone really doesn't like B5, methinks. Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nice job on the article rescue. --Captain Infinity (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

David Archuleta

GA nom concerns, I believe, have been addressed. -- Banjeboi 19:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the GA review page. Everything you've done is good, but I'd really like to see the references cleaned up appreciatbly before passing the article. It's iffy about whether that's covered by WP:WIAGA or not, but the articles I've passed for GA have generally had their reflists in much better shape than this one. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Weird ALbum

You ran the GA review (seen here) for "Weird Al" Yankovic, but I'm not sure how best to reply to your input. Line-by-line? Separate section? Indented? I want it to look understandable, and particularly would like to be in line with any SOP should there be one. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You can reply indented underneath each comment, or you can reply all at the end. I'm usually smart enough to figure out what goes where. :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

10-4, I won't worry too much about it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, note my comment above. :) BOZ (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I you check the article code, I'm actually pretty sure of that information myself but have it commented out pending reliable sourcing—of which I can't find any yet! I've got a line on some more resources, so I'll see what I can pan out. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah--I hadn't thought to do that. Clever way to handle it. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Churches of Christ

I'm going to be out of town for a few days, so I probably won't be able to turn back to this article until sometime next week. If you get a chance to flag the areas that you think need the most work (and maybe even fix any new mistakes I may have created), I'd appreciate it. Two areas that stick out for me are the history section and the "Outside the United States" section. My sense is that the history has been better handled in some other articles, and that the "outside" section may be throwing groups together based on similarities between their names, rather than any real historical or theological connection (I may be mistaken about that - I'm not familiar with several of the groups mentioned).

At some point I may want to raise the "big 'C' little 'c' - which 'C' do we love?" question again. My sense, though, is that we can all have a more useful conversation about it once we have the article in a bit better shape - maybe a better formed article will give us a more concrete touchstone for discussing how the terms are used by the group, why they use them that way, and whether or not it has any significance for what we do in the article. For now, I'm comfortable with your approach of using the capital C outside of direct quotes and the immediate discussion of those who use the lower case c.

Anyway, thanks for your encouragement and help! EastTN (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can get to over the weekend. Unfortunately, I'm going to be preoccupied with a few other things, so it's quite possible I won't get to do much before you get back. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

House episodes

Hi, I noticed the peer review for the List of House episodes ended. I've been expanding the page a bit (in order to get it to FL status), but I don't really know what to put in the seasonal sections. I would appreciate your help, but, of course, don't feel obligated.--Music26/11 15:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So, as you noticed, I'm also working on getting List of Veronica Mars episodes to FLC. I figure since that's an off-the-air show, it's a better place to get FLC experience. Then, once I've gotten that achieved, I'd like to work on List of House episodes using the knowledge gained, hopefully to coincide with the season ending. That is, if there's nothing airing week-to-week, we're less likely to see a ton of well-meaning but sub-par contributions which will mess up FLC. If you're busy working on getting a whole season to GA as part of a GT, that might be a good thing to break down into a season-long list. There are a lot of TV shows that are season-by-season list articles. Doing one of the earlier seasons allows you to focus on that in depth... just something to consider. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny you mentioned that, I'm currently working on seasonal pages (but I intend to get them up to FL status, since that's what I've noticed on most seasonal pages). Well, take all the time you want, I'll notice it when you contribute.--Music26/11 16:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have another ulterior motive, too. I watch House on Hulu, so I'm a week behind everyone else, and so if I don't want to be spoiled, I can't work on S5... Are your seasonal pages in mainspace yet? Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bishop Gilson levi

That was after an initial cleanup. You should have seen the original. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your contributions in taking Good Samaritan law to GA status. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I couldn't have taken the last few steps without the prior efforts of you and the other editors who'd done all the heavy lifting before I pushed it over the edge. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting Capt rockstar's rude contribution to my Talk page, that was an unexpected kindness on your part. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Anyone who goes after the person who gave them a level1 warning is probably not long for Wikipedia. :-S Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Dillahunty

I don't know what your experience level is, but it is considered very bad form to withdraw an AFD when there are !votes on both sides of the issue. This essentially nullifies their arguments. As to your rationale, a gnews search shows exactly ZERO hits. try it yourself. Once you start an AFD, you don't own it, and withdrawal has traditionally only been done in the event of a snowball keep verdict. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you do an all dates search, there are four Austin-American Statesman sources on him, at least one of which appears to be primarily about him. I agree it's poor form to withdraw an AfD, but even more egregious that I didn't do a comprehensive Google News search first. If you'd like to renominate, feel free. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bidgee2

Definitely wasn't my account. Seems to be the vandal which I reverted using it to attack me. Thanks for raising the issue as I would have gone unnoticed. Bidgee (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. BTW, I just filed an ANI on it. Jclemens (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And he's blocked already. Boy, Wikipedia is efficient sometimes. :-) Jclemens (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wizards of the Coast GA

Thanks again! :) I'm glad to have helped achieve this important status for a couple of important articles. It was my intention to move on to Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms next... however, as I look around at both of them, I realize that they are both hardly referenced at all, and even then are referenced mostly to primary sources. I know that they both have as much potential to get to GA as the EGG and WotC articles, but due to lack of sourcing and relying on in-universe info, they are both a long way off. What I will do is ask around and see what turns up. If I get any hits, you can expect to see them on the nomination list. :)

If those fail to turn up quickly, I will probably move on to comic book articles, if you are interested in that. I will probably have more help on articles like those, given the larger fanbase and support on Wikipedia, so I may nominate more than one at a time. I am thinking articles on publishing companies, comics series, and comics creators are the way to go, and maybe a small selection of characters as well.

Well, thanks again. :) Hope you enjoyed helping me improve these two, and hope to work with you again. In the meantime, you are always welcome to help with the D&D Wikiproject as time allows, and check out with Drilnoth has been up to. BOZ (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a little experience with FR, but none at all with Dragonlance. Well, I know that halflings are Kender or something like that, and more annoying than anything, but I've never played in the campaign setting nor read a Dragonlance book, so I'm probably going to pass on these. I was pleasantly surprised with how well you took WotC from a mess to a good article, but I lack to the background to appropriately shepherd you towards GA with FR or DL. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - hopefully I will come up with something in the future that you will feel comfortable looking at, as it was indeed good working with you. :) It's not unlikely that I will be nominating some comic book articles next, if that's any better. BOZ (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tags on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

I've gone through Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and made a lot of changes so that hopefully the {{Articleissues}} can be removed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've stopped wastchlisting that article, as I was only concerned with it in an attempt to get those in favor of tagging to provide meaninful and actionable issues for resolution as part of a WP:3O. Does it need more intervention? If you believe that those tags no longer apply, please feel free to remove them per WP:BRD--if someone reverts your removal, they owe you an explanation on the talk page about the issues they still believe remain. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Mars

Hi there. I fininshed the Veronica Mars page, but it still needs a copyedit. I was wondering if you would be interested, or if not, could you direct me to someone who could? Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to look at it and provide comments. I may not get to it this evening, however, because of prior committments. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Most of the article is okay, I think the section that needs most work is the "Season synopses" section. I haven't changed much, and I fear it has some POV in it. Let's start with that, thanks. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For the "date" section in the refs, I wrote them like this: September 19, 2008 instead of 08-9-19, mainly because the new MoS does not require dates to be linked. How do you think we should go about it? I prefer September 19, 2008 for the "date" section, and 08-9-19 for the "accessdate" section. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I've always used them as yyyy-mm-dd both places, because it will autolink like that. I got reamed for that in my first run at GA, and have always just done it that way ever since. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I suggest we leave them as "September 19, 2008", and change them if the GA reviewer tells us to. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. If you've been monitoring my changes, I stopped doing those once I saw your note. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok thanks. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much on the work so far, I can already see mass improvement. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have started a new format of the cast and characters section on my sandbox, although it is just a draft. Which do you think works better? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the sandbox version better, but am concerned that it might be encroaching too much on the subject of List of Veronica Mars characters. At what point should the entire list be simply merged back into the show's article? I think we're agrees that that's not a good idea, but where do you think the line should be drawn? Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the sandbox version better too. Well I'm not sure what you are trying to say (lol), but I think that all the series regulars should be on the main page, and all the others just left on the "List of" page, along with the series regulars. Does that answer your question? And as for Lilly's casting info, where should we put that? If we use the new format, there will be no place left for it. I have already place it on the Lilly Kane page, I think that's good enough. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't like the sandbox version better. I previewed it with the main VM page, and it didn't really good that good. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think leaving it as-is will prevent GA? If so, we can always wait for the reviewer (eventually) to tell us what s/he thinks is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I modelled the cast and characters section after Lost, which is a(n) FA, so I don't think that will be a problem. I merely wanted to see if there was a better way to present the information, so I guess it is good as-is. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey, looks like we're getting close! Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good job! So what do you think we should do after it passes GA? Do you want to pursue an FAC? If your answer is yes, I think we should get another user to copyedit the article again, an then ask for a peer review. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm game, but I've never been to FAC before. I'm somewhat intimidated by the reputation it's gathered, but I've got to tackle it sometime... :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Um, well most of the FAC reviewers are "prose crazy". They usually can find errors where there aren't any, so that is why I suggested another copyedit. Do you know a user who would be willing to help? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. We could go straight to Peer Review and see if we can pick up someone there. I do know a couple of folks who've done FA work, but I don't know who really likes to work on pop culture stuff like VM. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(restart indent) Yeah, that's not a bad idea. I think the best person to copyedit the article is someone who has seen it, and when you look at the ratings of the show, I think that person is going to be hard to find. ;) When do you want to start the peer review? Straight after the GA or a few days later? Makes no difference to me. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I never saw it broadcast (I have the DVDs) so there may be more like me. Let's start peer review as soon as GA is attained. Jclemens (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We're passed GA, peer review initiated! :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's just hope everything goes smoothly. I'm going to go and ask a few editors to review the article, maybe you know a few editors? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, will do. 05:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Two editors with FAC experience ping'ed, one resultant edit. Better than nothing, but I suspect that many of the people who are comfortable working on FA material are already either sufficiently busy or inactive. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well the response has been slow. I'll try a few other users. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Think it's ready to close out the PR and go for FAC? Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Veronica Mars episodes

Meanwhile, I have been working on List of Veronica Mars episodes. I am going to take it to FLC soon, but the summaries need a copyedit. Some of them contain a bit of POV, so I was wondering if you are up to it? Otherwise, the article is missing some ratings references, but I will fix that up. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely slammed this weekend, but I'll get to it as I can. Sounds like fun! Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, take as long as you want. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have done everything I can to the list. All it needs is a copyedit and then I will nominate it. No pressure though. ;) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 10:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, one copyedit on the episode list done. Might be room for more, I'll keep looking at it over the next day or two. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed this article as much as I think I can. Of course there is always room for improvement, but I think it is quite good. Do you think I should nominate it now? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Worst they can say is "no"--I think we're good enough they're not going to say "hell no, go away" :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, true though. Thanks for submitting it for PR, now I'll wait 'till that's done and nominate it straight away. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good news is we got a list of things to look at in PR. Hey, can you strikethrough the things you've handled, so I don't go trying to fix them twice? :-) Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do that now. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on the Pilot (Veronica Mars) episode, and I am going to nominate it for GA. You'll notice that a lot of the information is from the main page, but some of the prose, mainly the plot, needs a minor copyedit. Could you look over it? Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 10:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Will look at it later today. Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just sent this up to FLC, but it looks like it's got several of the same dead link issues as the main article does. Sigh. At least now, we can solve them in two places at once. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say excellent job on this list. Rarely do I see a list with such a comprehensive and well-written leads. I usually work on sports lists, but this one caught my attention. Good for you guys! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. It's my first FLC, so I'm really happy to hear that it's viewed so favorably. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice job with the copyedits on the list. The amount of info (and spoilers) you are putting the summaries is perfect. I think main things should be mentioned, maybe just not the conclusion of the arcs themselves. Lenghthwise, I think we're fine. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've addressed everything in this latest round of feedback, but it couldn't hurt to have another review for stupid mistakes--typos, spelling, grammar, etc. If you could double check me... Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I went over the second season and added additional information. I think that season is done, the summaries are now long and contain more info. The third season is also practically done, and the first season summaries, while a bit short, are good too. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 10:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we went over another round of collaborative copyediting, and I think it looks even better than before. Let's see what the reviewers have to say now... Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, we did it! :D Will our next focus be the characters or the locations? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was actually considering doing the S1 stuff first. Locations and Characters are both just cleanup, as I see it. There will be relatively little RS coverage on either, so all we're doing is combining things that really don't merit their own separate articles. I doubt either has a final destination as an FL. Thanks for sticking with this. I think any featured content really needs an active tag-team at least. Of course, we COULD make another run at VM FA....

For characters, do you think that main characters (Veronica, Keith, etc.) should have their own? Or should we combine everyone into a list? Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

For now, I think all the characters that were part of the main cast for at least one season should be kept. I guess we'll see as we go along, but characters like Jackie can probably me merged. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Neptune (Veronica Mars)

Looks like this was supposed to be merged into Veronica Mars or deleted. Hmm. Not sure I really want to do that. What if we merged a bunch of articles into Locations in Veronica Mars or something like that? Looks like some of the other fictional location articles are... well, need work. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't really want to waste a lot of time on pages like these. I think your suggestion was good: create Locations in Veronica Mars, and redirect all the "places" to that page, i.e. Neptune, California, Neptune Grand, Neptune High and Hearst College. Sound good? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Think we ought to make a two-person VM task force under Wikiproject:Television and just go to town? :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, well I don't see why not. If we do, what do you think will be our main focus? The main page is alredy a GA, and the episodes list is almost a FL. There really is nothing else to work on. The individual character pages would be a waste of time, there are soooo many stubby ones. Actually, we could start merging a couple in the main characters page. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I started work on the page here: User:Cornucopia/Work. I don't think that the page is that important, so I will work on it by myself and I will tell you when it is ready. However, if you want to help, which I doubt, that's okay. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm in class all weekend, so I'm not sure how much time I will have to work on it. Peer review for both the article and list seems to be good, but we've done all the obvious stuff. Want to go ahead and nom VM at FAC, and see what other feedback we get? 8-| Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha... I was suggesting it again (Senility sucks!) when you were going ahead and doing it.

Looks like your Locations in Veronica Mars combination is a great start: It's got all the deficiencies of the others! :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that LoVM is probably going to take me a long time, most probably because I don't really care about it :O Anyways I hope the FAC goes smoothly, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have started working on the article, User:Cornucopia/Work, but I was just wondering, should I include the plot information relating to the locations as well? I think I will, as it will increase the size of the article. Btw, I will probably not be on Wikipedia for the next two weeks or so. Exams are starting up again, and I probably should study for them. ;) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would include the major plot points--like the Neptune Grand ends up being Duncan's, and later Logan's, residence. Mind if I keep working on it in your sandbox in your absence? Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Mi casa es su casa. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I merged all the locations to this page: Locations in Veronica Mars. I realize it's really scruffy; I just created it so that the locations could be merged. How do you want to go about the page? Just delete it, or get it to good article status? It could be considered to be a list, but if we write it as prose, we could get it to GA status; I believe there's enough info out there. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, it's good enough for mainspace, and hopefully that will attract other editors. I've noticed it and started messing with it already. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Retreat at FAC

Shall we withdraw the nom and work on the feedback, then renom in a couple of weeks? Not sure we're going to get much more useful feedback on the process this time around, and I'm all for demonstrating that I know how to take a hint when the outcome is essentially a foregone conclusion. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tough crowd, huh? lol. I think the nomination was a good thing. Now we know the main issues, prose and sourcing, which will be good for our next nom. I'm all for withdrawing, so you can do it if you want to. Speaking of next time, there seems to be issue with the fan sites. If we have to remove them, then the whole casting section is gone. Any idea on how to deal with this? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

None, really. We can probably alternately source a good bit of it, but that may knock out a lot more than we can replace through impeccable sources. Wikipedia is a funny thing--We're getting gigged at FAC for noncontroversial fan sources that've been up for years, and other people are arguing with me in current political topics that blogosphere sites are acceptable for contentious BLP assertions. Gotta love the diversity! :-) Jclemens (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I went through the article and cleaned it up a bit; I just hope I improved the prose and not made it worse. I think that we have done our fair share of work on the article, don't you think? It is time to find another editor to go over the article and give it another copyedit. Since we have read over it so many times, we can't spot the mistakes that a newcomer or potential FAC review can. Do you know any editor's that would be willing to help out? And about the sourcing issues, I think that our fan sites should be allowed. I might take them to one of those "reference reliability places" to see what other users have to say. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 12:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, User:Giggy has agreed to help, he just asked that we do the content work, which is fine by me. I've started a topic at Talk:Veronica Mars#Drive to FA! for the three of us to collaborate. Shall we move the FAC discussion from here to there? Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Mars good or featured topic?

What do we need to meet WP:WIAFT for Veronica Mars? VM is GA but not yet FA, LoVMe will pass FL at some point, and you're working on pilot for GA. Here's some ideas

• VM, LoVMe, List of Veronica Mars Characters, List of Veronica Mars locations. Call it "Veronica Mars overview" Problem with that is with 3 list articles, there is no "good topic" status for such an arrangement--FT or nothing.
• VM season 1? It might be a stretch to get all those articles to GA--not sure there will be enough external sources for all of them.

Overall, it seems like to get anything to featured topic status we'll need to collapse a lot of characters into a list. Maybe we could do a "Veronica Mars characters" topic--Seek FL for a "List of minor VM characters" and focus on Veronica, Keith, Wallace, Weevil, and Logan, the five who stayed series regulars throughout.

Other ideas? Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we're on to topics now? Cool. Okay, creating an individual page for each season, i.e. VM (season 1) is actually really easy, and getting it to FL is even easier. Don't believe me? Have a look at 30 Rock (season 1). Exaclty, we practically have all that information. For the character list, have a look at Characters of Smallville. That's a really good one, and although we don't need ours to be as comprehensive, we could do something along those lines. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 22:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So... VM, LoVME, VM s1, VM s2, VM s3? That would work. I figure there's got to be a featured topic in here somewhere with all this work... Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that we have our topics, let's start our work. Which list do you want? I'll take season three. Season 1 is probably easier than season 2, but it's up to you. If you want to do season three, just say and I'll just do season 1. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 23:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll do season 1, but I want to babysit the LoVMe pretty closely first. Is it acceptable to reuse the vast majority of content from VM and LoVMe to make season articles? Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Acutally, that's what I want to do. :-) I guess there's nothing wrong with it, so yeah, it is acceptable. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good ref for the season 1 reception section: http://www.metacritic.com/tv/shows/veronicamarsseason1dvd?q=veronica%20mars. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started the third season page. Take a look: User:Cornucopia/Sandbox2. Note the bold parts are things I need to fix; they may be from other pages. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I need some help. If you have a look at my sandbox (above), you will see the awards section. The thing is that I am not sure which awards are for season 2 and which are for season 3. Any ideas? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be just as lost as you are--I have no idea how show seasons correspond to award seasons. Maybe someone at Wikiproject Television? Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this page: List of Veronica Mars cast members? It is pretty much useless and has no new information. Do you think we should AfD it? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I prodded it. What do you think of List of Veronica Mars characters? Think if we merged the content from all the individual character articles into that page, we'd have something worthwhile? Also, Template:Vmarsnav is icky. I'd like to demolish it to the main article, ep list, season articles, characters, and locations. How's that sound? Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate the template too. It should be reworked. For the character articles, I think we should keep the series regulars, but redirect the rest to the LoVMC. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the season 3 list, I have decided to nominate it for FA instead of FL. It seems the amount of prose makes it an article, rather than a list. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So where's the bright line? How much prose is too much? Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. Have a look at Bignole's explanation here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (US TV series) season 4. That should give you some idea. And btw, are you planning on making season 1 an FL or FA? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 09:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I aksed about the sourcing issues of the casting section, and Bignole gave an optimistic response on how to deal with the issue. You can read his repsonse here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Casting and fansites. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call, thanks! Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea with the sources below. I have a couple I'll add later. So, I created a page for the third season: Veronica Mars (season 3). Have our plans changed, or are we going to continue and make season pages? I don't really mind, as most of the information is covered in the main page. What's our new direction? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care, actually. I can see doing everything in one big article, since LoVMe seems so close to FLC, why abort and break it up? At the same time, I'd really like to do a comprehensive cleanup, and what really needs to be cleaned up first are the characters and locations, with attendant mergings. I guess I kind of see that as a higher priority than season-specific articles. There's nothing stopping us from breaking up LoVMe into seasons and shortening it to a bare episode list like List of Smallville episodes, is there? You know, I almost think we ought to make ourself a task force of Wikiproject Television so there's a good centralized place to keep a to-do list and whatnot. I know you have exams, as do I, so I'm really only minding the FLC right now. Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the character and locations should be our top priority right now. The season article can wait. I have decided to stay off Wikipedia for the next week and study for exams, and the week after that to actually do them. I will pop in and out every now and then, but I can't really help with the FLC. Good luck and I'm sure that it will pass. :-) About the task force, I totally agree. Can you start working on it? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

VM Links to abuse

• [10] Gives odds on different characters being responsible for the S2 bus crash.
• [11] Episode reference.
• [12] Washington Post mention.
• [13] Salon commentary on why college didn't work in S3.
• [14] S2 finale recap.
• [15] Compared to Harry Potter?
• [16] Production/filming info.
• [17] Australian criticism of S2.
• [18] Early S3 review.
• [19] MTV confirming Paris Hilton for S1 ep2.
• [20] Ref to alternate ending where Meg is killed.
• [21] Political tidbit about Rick Santorum.