User talk:Jclemens/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Your GA nomination of Wasilla_Assembly_of_God

The article Wasilla_Assembly_of_God you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Wasilla_Assembly_of_God for things needed to be addressed. \ / (⁂) 04:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I'll work to address these concerns over this weekend. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Characters of Myst GAN

Hey, I've fixed the issue with the bluescreen shot and readded it. I've also gone through and done some copyediting, as well as some fixes; removing excess detail, making sure all new terms are explained, giving a more direct explanation of the Art, yadda yadda, and keeping references to characters mentioned later to a minimum. If you can take a look and see if there are still areas that need clarification, that would be great. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's definite improvement there, but some challenges still remain. I've left more detailed feedback on the GA page. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For editing help and wise counsel above and beyond the call of the average good article reviewer. Thanks a bunch, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but you did all the hard work. I just sit here and critique things. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential RfA

Ok, Jc, here is my delimna. Do I think you would make a decent admin? Yes, which is why I am struggling with writing a nom. I keep looking back at September and the history from Wasilla Assembly of God and have concerns. During our first encounter, I felt as if I was playing a balancing game between you and EricDiesel (now Tautologist). Eric was definitely more aggressive and IMO a POV warrior. In fact, I think I ended up at that page because of comments on keeper's talk page. Despite his being aggressive, I found some of your edits to be pushing a POV as well. Heck, I even came to your talk page and gave you a friendly warning that your edits could be construed as vandalism. Researching this last night, I realized that this didn't end when I left. Now, I know that EricDiesel's interpretation of the facts is off. I saw him misrepresent facts enough to know that I wouldn't rely upon them. But all of this rolls up to the question, "Is he ready for adminship today?" AND "Can he pass an RfA today?" I have zero doubt that you are on the right path, but I don't want you to get tagged with a reputation at RfA. Failed RfA's can have one of the impacts. First, it could wash the slate clean making a future RfA easier. Second, it could cement a reputation that you struggle with down the road. I bring this up, because I want you to convince me that this isn't an issue. What I need to do tonight is research you some more to see if Wasilla was the exception to the rule, or if there were other places where issues arose? Wasilla was a contentious area, where emotions ran high, which might help... but In all honesty, right now it would be easier for me to write a strong oppose than a strong nomination. But I haven't stopped looking at you...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So, the other contentious places you may want to look is Andrew Wilson (academic) and its AfD and WP:Articles for deletion/Frank Kaufmann--those are about the only two other extended debates I've been in, and the Frank Kaufmann AfD is the worst I've ever behaved at Wikipedia. On the other hand, you can check out what I've done to James Dobson which has been some pretty balanced handling of a rather messy article that's so much of a land mine that no one really wants to deal with it. There's plenty of other good stuff going on, but if you want to focus on the negative, that would be where I'd point you. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me the good too... I'm trying to find reasons TO nom you, not reason not to nom you. ;-) I did see the Frank Kaufman one last night, I don't think I looked at Wilson.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Check my user page for the things of which I'm proud. Whedonesque.com before vs. after my efforts, or one of the other 3 GAs I've done. Check out my 3O work, most of which has been well received. My work with Cornucopia on Veronica Mars related issues, including List of Veronica Mars episodes which just passed FLC. I've done a lot of huggling and "by hand" vandal fighting, and have made a habit of leaving {{welcome-anon}} for IP editors without talk pages who make good edits. Look at Thermal imaging camera, which is essentially entirely my work, where I took an article from a redirect to GA, with a DYK en route. I've participated in a ton of other AfD's, and am proud of my work on the article rescue squadron, yet you won't find me a blanket inclusionist. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

3O could be HUGE. I'll look at it this evening.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find a comprehensive review of my record will show that I don't like vandals, believe deletion of articles should be a last resort rather than a gauge to see if anyone cares, and am capable of remaining basically civil and following 3RR even while irritated. Oh yeah... and I build an encyclopedia :-). Regardless of whether or not I get an admin bit, I'll still build articles as my fancy strikes me and as I see a need, while continuing to revert vandalism and weighing in on policy debates as I have an opinion, and my activity will fluctuate with my available time--I chose WikiSloth as my totem for a reason. :-) I'm human, I make mistakes, and I generally undo them and apologize once I realize my boo-boo's. I've been a system administrator off and on for 20 years, more than half my life, so I don't see it as a particular status symbol. Fundamentally, I'd gain the most satisfaction of WP:RBIing people who do stuff like this rather than chasing them around with rollback until they give up and go away. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get to it last night... will try again tonite.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for keeping me informed. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck on your RfA! Malinaccier (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I heard you were into Sadomasochism?

Ok, if you want to go for it, I have no problem supporting ya. It might get a little tough, depending on how people perceive your involvement with Wasilla. I would not, however, make this nom without feeling comfortable with your abilities to be an admin, or to pass an rfa. Before you run, you might want to take a look at my essay. Also, before transcluding make sure that you will be available for 2-4 hours to answer questions. The RfA community seems to think that candidates have to answer optional questions immediately during the early stages of the candidacy. Also, if you want a co-nom, I have no problem with a conom... I do suggest waiting for the conom to add their nom before transcluding. Try to limit it to one other nom tho. If you don't like the nom, feel free to tell me. it's late and I'm tired, so it might not be my best work.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any reason I shouldn't take the plung on Saturday, when I'll have a bunch of time and will (hopefully) have gotten a good night's sleep first? Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Go for it... I won't be around during the day to watch it, but your ability to monitor it is key.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm done tweaking it. I have an obligation Saturday during the day, so will probably kick it off after I get home. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great nom b-man. jclemens, don't sweat it. You're gonna do just fine. RFA is nothing compared to some of the editing/editors you've dealt with gracefully. Just remember always, once an admin, there are thousands more of him where he came from. :-) Fun fun! Keeper ǀ 76 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and strong support, Keeper. Hey, is this the first time you posted on my talk page? It could be some sort of sea change... :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only are there thousands more of him where he came from, every single one of them will demand you answer your every question IMMEDIATELY, regardless of whether you're asleep/at work/haven't logged on for a month/know nothing about the topic. Just for reference, this is what 24 hours in the life of an admin looks like. Good luck… – iridescent 02:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, I have run a MUD for 13 years, off and on. I also have three kids under the age of 12. I'm familiar with being griped at persistently and vehemently. :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Running an MMORPG… Telling unruly 12 year olds they can't always have what they want… Are you sure you're not already an admin? – iridescent 02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My first martial arts instructor had a philosophy about training and leadership--it began the day you put on a white belt, and continued from thenceforth, such that by the time you developed the physical skills necessary to be a black belt, the attiude, knowledge, and leadership were already there. So in that sense, I've been an admin for a long time. I just don't have the bit, that's all. No big. :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You will be happy to learn that I don't question the notability of the article User:Jclemens and have voted speedy keep. — Realist² 03:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to apply a good dosage of don't give a fuck, and good luck. RockManQ ^(talk) 03:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give it my best shot. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Two questions

Hey Jclemens, Two completely unrelated questions: 1) What styles did you study? 2) Are you a military brat?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Tang Soo Do, mostly--it's the only style I hold a dan rank in. I've done a little of this'n'that--kenjutsu, escrima, aikijutsu, and a little hsing-i/bagua/Tai-Chi.

2) Nope. My dad was in the military when he got assigned to Alaska, but he transferred to the reserves and stayed, so I've never gotten dragged around like a real military brat. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of your edits made me think you might have been a military brat. I kept reading things that made me wonder about that. As for martial arts, I'm a black belt in Kung Fu---but the school I was at had a different view of Black Belt than most. Black belt wasn't the symbol of excellence, but rather an indication of when you became a true student. So, you could become a black belt in a few years, but that was when the real training began. In some styles, when you get black belt, you've learned everything.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In most American martial arts schools, it simply means you've invested enough money. :-( Nope, not a military brat, but I'm no stranger to the military. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Third Party Opinion

Jclemens,

I appreciate the time you took to read and comment on my entry. The references you were asking for were mostly all there, just buried. I'll move them around. The fact that Mr. Ferguson owns the companies in question is taken care of by the context of the article, but clearly, if you don't have the context you wouldn't know it. I'll take you up on those suggestions and repost.

Cassandrar (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Respect

I am dropping the discussion on List of House Episodes only because I have nothing but the utmost respect for your and your POV. Although I don't agree with it, again I believe that soon all of it will be resolved and people can continue to make constructive edits. I value your opinion and again I say, thanks for putting this issue to rest and as always...Cheers--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I don't think I'm anyone special, just one more voice trying to apply Wikipedia policy consistently. Appreciate your candor, and I do know how it is to be on the losing side in debates, so I can empathize a bit there, too. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

it just kind of got out of hand with people not hearing the consensus but i mean im over it honestly..and really i was tiredof debating the issue...when i saw that it was you that kind of squashed it i just threw my hands up and said i really don't give a fuck anymore...lol..cheers--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Up for another GA?

No hurry because we're busy on the D&D project at the moment, but if you are interested, Dragons of Despair is up for nom. :) And good luck on your RFA! :) BOZ (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I know nothing about Dragonlance, though... I may see what I can do over the T-day weekend, but no promises. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem - like I say, no hurry. :) BOZ (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good start

While I don't want to break out the champagne yet, you are off to a good start. Of course, I'm always afraid of the skeletons in the closet that I don't know about ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too, because it would mean I'm getting senile. :-) Yeah, I'm liking how things are going after the first ~23 hours. Is the close time right? I didn't update that when I transcluded it onto the main RfA page. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, got my first oppose now, but pretty much for exactly the reasons expected. Any coaching on how I handled it? Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A model way to handle it; by taking it off the RFA you let the conversation continue without the RFA turning into a flamewar. Maybe it would have been better off on the RFA talkpage, but that's a trivial point. – iridescent 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was attempting to provide answers without excuses... I don't expect to convince him, but I do hope to demonstrate that I know what happened and why, and that the incident in question is behind me. I only briefly considered responding in the RfA itself, but I quickly concluded that a brief acknowledgement might be perceived as too flippant, and I did not want to get into a detailed explanation in the Oppose section. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if you could convince him even if you were 100 in the good, he and I had a little tif a few months ago (where in 3 crats, 3 admins, and 2 other users were critical of him)... I struggle to AGF with him... and I expected his oppose.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 05:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case

I'm travelling right now, so I might not be able to come by and congratulate you when this closes, but unless something major happens in the next 24 hours or so, it looks like you are going to pass. I do know of 2 RfA's that have failed in the final day of the RfA, so I'm not popping the champagne yet... but I am getting it ready. Anyways, assuming this passes, congrats.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a good Thanksgiving--I'm on shift at my fire station today, so I should be able to pop in and check occasionally.... Unless it gets to be a stupidly busy day, like holidays sometimes do. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

House

Same issue at List of House Episodes..I really can only put my hands up in this case..I read the discussion at Wikipedia:FICT/N#List_of_House_episodes and I ultimately agreed with everything you guys said there that the entire episode needed to be shown. but now anon editors are coming in and removing it and now i will probably wind up in the whole edit war scenario.so now i can only throw it back to you seeing as though you are the one that ended the last issue..really i would like to see the page protected so this can end entirely.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been watching things. I'll weigh in again. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh

I know wacked out conspiracy theories are not new to Wikipedia, but do they really deserve a place in the article of a cold blooded killer such as Tim McVeigh? Sure, it is nice to lend credence as to why he did it (i.e. it was justified) - but how about we stick to facts and not throw in every guys book that wants to make a buck off the murder of so many families along the way? I can source to death that UFO's blew up the building, but that would be ridiculous - so why are we allowing these crazy theories to make up 25% of this article? Please revert the revert. At best that entire half page section should be a paragraph. Wikipedia should not be a book fair.66.186.173.180 (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it as I think your revert was a knee jerk because of the bot as if you read what you reverted you probably would not have done it. Let justice be done though the heavens fall... 66.186.173.180 (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss here. Most people who remove large portions of content aren't interested in discussion, but just in pushing their own agenda. I disagree that that section needs to be removed, but I don't usually watch that article--I just am patrolling for vandalism tonight. Someone else may very well revert your change later, but I won't be doing it tonight. Please consider registering for an account--they're anonymous, or at least as much as an IP address is--so that you can build a reputation for yourself and distinguish your edits from those of other unregistered users. This is especially important when you want to make major, controversial, or major controversial changes. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

In approx. two hours your RfA will pass. Unless you get 20 opposes in that amount of time (which you won't), you'll pass. So congrats! RockManQ ^(talk) 05:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, less than one. RockManQ ^(talk) 05:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the premature congratulations. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

beat the crat congrats

Goodnite... and congrats...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in on me. :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Missed it !.. :( Anyways Congrats on your successful RFA and best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 06:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page

Just to let you know that I deleted and restored your talk page to remove a phone number. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't even noticed it in the spam. No worries. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Please can you also delete the redirect to User:Fahadsadah/Alert, which is User:Fahadsadah/Alert.js? The same CSD critereon applies. Thank you, f~s~(Talk,Contribs,Online?) 10:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure I just did that. I don't see it there now--check again? Jclemens (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it should be User:Fahadsadah/Templates/Alert.js. Please can you also delete Fahadsadah/sig.css, which will not hold a {{db}} but meets G7 f~s~(Talk,Contribs,Online?) 10:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jclemens (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Congrats on your successful RfA Jclemens. You deserve it. :-) Master&Expert (Talk) 08:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to ignore the adrenaline rush and go to bed now. :-) Jclemens (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, indeed! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Super congrats... what article will you delete first? ;0 —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 15:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And I already deleted Car Rental Tips per PROD. Why wade into AfD or CSD wielding powerful new tools when there are a list of perfectly uncontentious things that no one seems to care about? :-) Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! I have to admit, that went more easily that I thought; the people I (and you) thought would be opposing didn't turn up. – iridescent 16:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent, I am in honor of your simple question fu, too. :-) Thanks for all your assistance; I am going to do my utmost to live up to your trust and time investment. Oh, and yeah, there were a couple of people I expected to oppose who didn't, but there were also a number of people I would have expected to support who didn't. I didn't do any canvassing, so I suspect that there were a lot of people on vacation this week and/or just generally ignorant of the RfA. Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations! EastTN (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you need a vandal basher, and I think I'll give you one! [[Image:XM8 - Final Version.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Highly Customizable]

Congrats! Just remember to use it wisely :P RockManQ ^(talk) 03:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

CONGRATS! Pleese excuse any ytpos as your thankspam blinded me. I haz adjusted the colors on my talkpage. kthxcongratsbai. لennavecia 03:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. The color choices weren't completely random, although I know full well they may not be to everyone's liking. Certainly, do with your talk page what you see fit--here I was expecting the animated gif would tick people off, so I added a collapse button. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

U HAZ MOP! CONGRACHULASHUNZ! // roux   06:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Been fiddling with it all day. :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the late congratulations. Use the tools wisely, and please don't delete my account. ;) Just kidding, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 12:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Good news is I can get back to the Veronica Mars stuff now. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations --Banime (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite – what's the significance of the colors? (I'm assuming Alaskan license plate and not Boca Juniors, the Flag of Barbados or Portsmouth FC.) – iridescent 13:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

They're Pepperdine University's school colors. Not like I have my house decorated in blue and orance or anything, but I do have a couple of graduate degrees from there. I was looking for something colorful, and my other choices were either not particularly colorful (blue and silver) or too hard to read (black and crimson). Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulation! Although it seems I was skipped in the thankspam ;) iMatthew 14:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see why. You don't have a talk link in your signature, so AWB didn't pick it up. Would you like a hand-delivered thankspam? (that sounds oxymoronic...) Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

=) iMatthew 16:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, congrats indeed! You know people have some confidence in you when 97% of respondents vote in your favor. :) BOZ (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(Ahem) – iridescent 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Q: What do they call the guy who graduates last in his class from med school? A: Doctor. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song comments

• i put comments on Talk:Brenda Song/GA2. May the force be with you. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I gave it a bit more thorough analysis than you did, but your comments were helpful and highlighted things that I didn't see, either. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"A bit more thorough" is an understatement. Your vision of GA and mine are very different. Major copy editing? I'm not arguing. I'm puzzled. How tight do you want GA writing to be? And where do you see a need for copy editing that could be described as "major"? Just asking. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I may be a bit of an anal perfectionist, but all I do is go through the GAList criteria and evaluate the article against them. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

no no no <smiling>. I'm not saying you're anal or a perfectionist. I just... think GA... means "grammatical prose that is not so bad that it is a major distraction, verified info, NPOV, no glaring omissions, lede summarizes article including controversies, end of story". The diff between us is in the standard regarding prose, I think. I have to admit, I glanced at that article in exactly.. well more or less five minutes or so. Not sure. I was happy to see that you pointed out some logical errors that I should've caught but didn't. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So, I've gotten mostly B's in English up through my undergraduate career--it's never been my strong suit--and I mostly expect prose that won't make me wince. That may be a higher or lower standard than the average GA reviewer, but I compensate by 1) by being absolutely willing to tell people what the problems are, and 2) to put things on hold, rather than failing them outright, for improvement. My goal is a good article Good Article, and giving a boolean pass/fail doesn't really meet that goal as effectively as comprehensive and iterative reviews, in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent; Free the Colons of Wikipedia) Those are good goals, and I respect your work. Don't go away with the feeling that one criticism negates all other good things about your work, because it doesn't. But... I ... still don't see where "major" copy editing is needed to bring this to GA. I mean, I literally don't see the patches that suck quite so badly. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the wording may have been inelegant. What I probably should have said was that copyediting would resolve the major issues. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who always speaks perhaps a little too colorfully (I have the scars to prove it) the current wording suggests a need for major rewriting, which in turn places stress on the nominator... but the review doesn't offer detailed guidance as to where within the text that need exists. High pressure/no apparent outlet for resolving it == good chance of arguments. Take it from me, I'm an expert. :-P Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

GA help

I'm tempted to quickfail the GA candidacy for "Homer the Great" since the article itself seems confused about what episode it's talking about. Both the lede and the reception section refer to the episode as "And Maggie Makes Three", which leads me to assume that some of this article was copied and pasted from other articles w/o regard for this article's content and subject matter. If the title is twice (afaict) wrong, what else in the article was lifted from other articles without being vetted for accuracy against the subject matter within? What would you suggest? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it was right at one point, but the nom changed it here. I have no idea why he would have done that, but note that the "And Maggie Makes Three" episode appears to be the next one in the sequence. Could be nothing more than a massive brain fart. :-) I'd put it on hold and ask the nom, because it does appear to have been right at one point. Failing it may still be appropriate, because you're absolurely right, it's not GA at this point. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops

The "only substantial contributor" part of G7 momentarily slipped my mind. Sorry 'bout that. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. They didn't take away the AGF expectation when they handed me my admin bit. :-) Jclemens (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Joy

 Marlith (Talk)  has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 Marlith (Talk)  04:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. Is the kitten female? ;-) Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gamay Trout

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gamay Trout, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamay Trout. Thank you. B. Wolterding (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

speedydel of Friends and Heroes episodes

Hiya... saw your deletion summary. Just wanted to let you know that I did check every episode, and the entire article was cnp from the URLs provided. Just in case you had any doubts ;) // roux   editor review 16:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If I checked six and they were verbatim, I'm really not concerned that one of the other 40+ episodes might have had some original content. :-) But thanks for following up with me--Obviously, we want to both nuke copyvio's as well as preserve original content, but that sure didn't look like a borderline case on a cursory inspection. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The wording was blatant marketingspeak, bleh! // roux   editor review 16:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Blatant" copyright violation

In cases like Window Box Multiplication, where the person who created the article that you described as "blatant" copyright violation" is probably the owner of the copyright, would it not be prudent to inform the person of Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Copyright_owners_who_submitted_their_own_work_to_Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials? Also, calling "possible copyright violation" seems more likely to be true that calling it "blatant copyright violation" when it is far from certain that a copyright has been violated. Even when the web page copied in the article is created by a person other than the creator of the article, it is certainly not certain that there is no permission. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't describe it as blatant--that's the boilerplate for {{db-g12}}. You're right--I could have notified someone or done something else, but if you look at WP:CSD, G12 expects the tagger, rather than the deleting admin, to make sure the user is so notified. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You did indeed call it "blatant" in your deletion summary. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

X'mas

File:Christmas collage.PNG

Merry Christmas!

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Jclemens,
Rogerchocodiles wishes you a Merry X'mas! Send this card to the other jolly users, even if it's a little early/late/your choice. Have a delightful Christmas and cheers!

Thank you. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AHSA

I'm no fan of AHSA, nor do I feel strongly one way or another, but this article seems to be a POV magnet, and I've tried to help neutralize it, after seeing it at 3O. I think that the size of the organization could be stated in the lead paragraph, but the recent attempt is very clumsy and unencyclopedic. Maybe you could rewrite it in sandbox and we could get a better product. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the number that's there in the lead is a sourced statement. It should definitely be updated... but by a source of equal or greater reliability. The POV issues in the article are pretty clear: 1) it was chartered as a POV organization--a moderate POV, with the express intent of appealing to moderate NRA members who are not involved in RKBA issues, and 2) now it doesn't appear to want to be so any longer. #2 is the issue--it's perfectly OK to position your organization however you want, that's part of what makes freedom great. Revisionist attempts to conceal that past through the deletion or deprecation of sourced facts fall under WP:NOTCENSORED, in my estimation. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the other sourced statement is of place in the lead. Between us I think we can overcome the POV and bring some neutrality to the article. These are the type of article that give WP a bad name. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gee, and I thought it was all the crappy myspace bands. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are many types of crap on WP. I think that the myspace is a big problem, but the POV magnets really hurt our credibility with the more serious readers. I think that we can all work through it with some guidance, training, and monitoring. I am gun owner and owner rights supporter, who is disturbed by what AHSA appears to be which may be a snake in the grass, but WP is not about editorials and investigative reporting. We need calm objectivity either using rock-solid sources, or objectively representing the various published opinions without prejudice. I think that the article is getting better, without becoming a whitewash. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. --AbsoluteIdiot22 (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ParagonEx

Hey there, thanks for giving the axe to the G12 ParagonEX. However, I think you left the article's Talk Page online. I do agree that the article could stand a rewrite. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I also heard via email from the article's creator on rewriting it -- I will work with that individual to get the piece correct. Thanks again! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I did that on purpose. The talk page is not a copyvio, and it contains some input that the author may not have seen yet, that may guide him/her to make a real, workable article--not a copyvio, not spam--assuming good faith that such can be done and is actively desired. Doesn't a bot go through and get such pages eventually? Regardless, I'm not in a hurry to delete it. If we were salting the page, yes, I would nuke it too. Make sense? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, yes. I will also try to work with the author, who acknowledges to be new to WP and is eager to learn. All will be well. Thanks, again! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I am catching on slowly. Thanks for your help. Romanfall (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer Security Formation Vote

Located Here.

--blurpeace ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User :Digitalmischief

Hi. This guy is seriously out of control. Look through his recent tagging history. Most of them are just wrong. I think you should warn the guy again, and if he doesn't calm down he should be blocked. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about MOST of them, but a good 20+% are, which is unacceptably high by an order of magnitude. He's stopped tagging things for the past 15 minutes, so I really hope he's reading the actual guidelines. We need people with enthusiasm and discretion. BTW, when someone else violates WP:DTTR on you, I'd recommend leaving the evidence around, rather than deleting it. After all, you've really got nothing to hide, do you? :-) Jclemens (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

True, not most of them, but most of the non-obvious ones were wrong. But I guess I'm going in circles, cuz all speedies should be obvious. Whatever :-) I usually don't mind speedy deletion notices on my talk page, but the dude left me THREE of them and a prod notice. I also felt that I'm kinda making a point to the guy - you're so wrong, your notice doesn't even deserve to be on a talk page. But thankfully, he stopped. I'll have to keep an eye out on him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Opportunity Asset Management

Hi! You said that Opportunity Asset Management was a negative unsourced BLP. Well, it had a (huge) interwiki and 2 links to articles in The New Times, but you can also find articles about it in any other newspaper, like Washington Post. Isn't that enought to begin an article? Sturm br (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the NYT articles, but they didn't explicitly support the specific allegations. When it comes to BLP, it can't just be an article that looks like it might cover the same ground as the RS, it has to have specific, direct citing. If it were less of the article, I would have nuked the offending section, but in this case, there simply wasn't enough left to make it worthwhile to keep--it would have been {{db-a1}} after removing the BLP issues. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

doctrines

Yes, I do think we should as soon as possible get to work on additional articles on all major religious doctrines--what makes you think such topics unencyclopedic? Or did you mean that this particular one (Coming persecutions) is, but not generally? DGG (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, the amount of academic writing over the years on religion yields a possibly disparate result. At the risk of running afoul of WP:BEANS, there is almost no limit to the silly and trivial religious topics, of no particular interest to anyone, which would be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. I find it humorous that we're fighting tooth and nail over WP:FICT, to the point that some people want to exclude any reference to fiction which doesn't turn up in literature about fiction, yet we have such a wide plethora of religious studies academic sources that the slightest nuances ("What DID Jesus write on the ground when he was being asked about the woman caught in adultery?") of Christianity are acceptable. It's pretty funny, actually. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

well, I'm among the people who support detailed articles on both types of subject--you do not have to convince me about the importance of articles on fiction. That doesn't include just the fiction i like--I support material on genres I can't imagine myself watching or reading. As for the importance of religion in human life, on a global basis, now and in the past, I think it's probably even greater. And the same qualification on whether I support the material holds thee also.DGG (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

fund for wild nature

i was authorized by fund for wild nature to utilize content from its website. thus, not copyright infringement. since this is the reason you cited for deletion, you must reinstate. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.103.152 (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're in contact with the copyright holder. WP:COPYREQ gives a set of steps they'll need to take before we can accept content verbatim from their website. It's a little more complicated than just saying "I have permission, honest"--while Wikipedia assumes good faith in all things, that's not quite enough when it comes to taking your word about someone else's intellectual property. If you don't want to wait for such copyright permissions, feel free to restart a new FfWN article, using paraphrased rather than copied verbatim wordings. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf

Could you tell me the reason Yaf gave for deleting his User talk page? SMP0328. (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RTV, without elaboration. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. SMP0328. (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Change

No evidence from target article that eRepulic is text-based
"The game has very few visual elements, and is primarily text-based in nature." (source: eRepublik)
What is your definition for "text-based"? Thanks in advance for the clarification! --Krakatov (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've reverted my edit. I'd seen "browser based" in the lead, and not seen that sentence while skimming through it. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Since you are online, maybe you could spare a moment to give me some tips on improving that page. Thanks for your time! --Krakatov (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do... No promises for speed, though. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels

[[Image:Triplecrown.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown upon Jclemens for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)]] Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Whedonesque.com - I enjoy writing WP:GAs about websites and this is a unique contribution to the project, nice job. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Now I just have one more FA/FL to go before the next level... I'm a sucker for leveling up, and the Triple Crowns are the most worthwhile awards on Wikipedia. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Muthee/GA1

Thanks much for the poke, I have taken some time to read it over and will do a review soon. It is not too far off from GA but I think some work can be done. I will leave some recommendations at that subpage in a bit. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Super. Didn't mean to rush you or antyhing, was thinking it'd probably slipped your mind. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I did all he asked for other than add refs to the lede - I trust the next review will be great <g>. Collect (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been out at a medical appointment and haven't even looked at it yet. It's really good to see you've already been at things--no one helped when WAoG finally came up for review. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, I'm still around. Was on wikibreak finishing up my school semester, but I'm back. Lemme go check things out. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Coolness. See you at the GA page! Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please check the contributions

Hello Jclemens

Please, check the contributions of the LarryLemy (talk · contribs), which has created several articles false in pt.wiki.

Thanks Adailton (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at a bit of these, but I don't have any domain expertise on these articles. Please revert any vandalism and warn the user appropriately, and any administrator who is monitoring the WP:AIV queue should be able to take appropriate action. Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Adam Kluger

Why was the Adam Kluger page deleted. That agency is one of the most talked about online now. You can have a page on Damon Dash and LA Reid but not the guy they all go to for clients? I think that was a useful page and i'd ask it be added. reference kluger agency Keywordrenewals (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the article didn't make any claim that, if true, would provide sufficient notability to merit a Wikipedia article. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Buy your GM a Book Day

You deleted my page under false pretenses. Your comment "(WP:PROD, reason was 'non notable day, WP is not for things made up in fourth period study hall'.) " is in great error:
1) It is not a childish endeavour for some personal gratification. I am a business owner who through studying customers, market trends, and fellow gamers concluded that this day would benefit players and the industry.

2) If you deem something "non-notable", my immediate question is "Says who?!" Clearly if something is NEW then by denfinition few to none of heard of it. My purpose in posting the wikipedia article was, 1) To be the first to do so, before someone else does 2) To help spread the word of the day, thereby making it more notable.

3) The day is not celebrated by 2 friends, as you allude, but in fact by 800 people in southern ontario, of which I was about to post the results of tomorrow. In addition, a public place (a local gaming store) is participating in the event by giving people discounts on the day. I was very careful not to make this day an ad for the store, it is a day for all to celebrate. More stores will participate next year.

4) There is nothing more "non-notable" about Buy your GM a Book Day than there is about Talk Like a Pirate Day. I first heard about Talk Like a Pirate Day from Wikipedia, and I structured my article closely to theirs so as not to violate any wikipedia content requirements. While Talk Like a Pirate Day clearly has more information, it has been around longer and it is only natural that it would be a longer entry.

I hope I have addressed your concerns so you can make a new decision.

Sigh. Dude, someone ELSE tagged that page as non-notable, with the rationale listed. I am merely a janitor around here: I looked at the fact that the {{prod}} tag hadn't been deleted in the last five days, and that it wasn't obviously bad faith or egregiously false. If you'd like me to undelete it, I will do so, and immediately nominate it for deletion, as it lacks verifiability or evidence of notability as demonstrated in reliable sources. There are plenty of real things that don't meet Wikipedia's criteria. Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal Effects

I had provided reliable sources as to the proof of this film yesterday. I live in Iowa City, and it has been mentioned many times here. Just because something is not picked up national is no reason for deletion. Thus today, after some friends returned from the premiere I check and this was gone. Proof...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-kutcher-floodreli,0,4989022.story

No, you hadn't. The article hadn't been changed since the 7th, when it was proposed for deletion. Please read WP:PROD, which tells you exactly how to get the article back, and I'll be happy to restore it. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please restore it. I can add the sources, I guess I just made a note on the wrong part of the article.

Done, and ready for you to add the source. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

David Lynch (neo-Nazi)

I dont see how the article is a personal attack, the guy is the leader of one of the largest white supremacist organization in the united states, I've only said what he has done. I dont see how that should be deleted. I have not personally attack him, please point out where I have if you believe so.Rayslav (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP very closely--the deletion isn't an assertion that anything you've said isn't true, rather that what you wrote wasn't supported by the sources you provided. One POV site isn't sufficient reliable documentation to call someone a Neo Nazi. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If I add more sources would it be alright?Rayslav (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If they are high-quality sources, yes. A Washington Post or NYT article on him would be ideal. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

One Month Off

No prob... but it really isn't clear whether the article is about the single, the forthcoming album, the artist, or a hypothetical video. I've left info on the author's talk page, so hopefully he will be able to clarify things. --digitalmischief (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also... just while we are on the topic... when you get a minute of time, would you consider giving me some info on the process of accepting/denying CSD, PROD and AfD (from an Admin perspective)? I have read and understand the guidelines, but there are more situations that are ambiguous (in regards to a CSD category) than there are which are clear-cut. The Twinkle software doesn't really give me a lot of options for reasons (no bio for A7, default on Test, etc)... and I have requested Rollback status so that I can try using Huggle, which numerous editors have told me is invaluable on Page Patrol, but that is still pending.

If a CSD is listed with A7, for example, is it hard or impossible for admins to change the reason, while still deleting the article? If that is the case, and I knew a little more about that process, I could probably make decisions that wouldn't cause you extra work. Just a thought. Best Regards. --digitalmischief (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So scratch everything above... I just answered my own question without realizing it. If there is any doubt at all, don't use CSD, instead use AfD or PROD. Duh. Blond moment. Moving on...--digitalmischief (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem--Sounds like you've got it. CSD's get the benefit of the doubt, AfD's are evaluated based on the strength of the arguments made in relation to policy, and Prod's are successful by default, as long as no one removes the tag for five days. CSDs are like Summary judgement in American law--Summary judgement basically says that one side's case is so weak that even if every fact they allege were true, there's no question of fact that would change the outcome. If "XYZ is a high school senior who will soon break on the scene" is in an A7-bio article, it's gone, because the article itself makes no claim that, if true, would merit it being kept. I do decline prods that have been around for five days, if they're something I can see would harm the encyclopedia to remove--for example, I declined Walter (Jeff Dunham Character) yesterday. On speedies, I also take the option of doing nothing with questionable cases, leaving them for another admin to handle. Make sense? Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I just heavily rewrote the page and added some references (it's actually about the third single from Bloc Party's record Intimacy). I'll add a few more, but the single won't be released for a month and until its released or charts on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart here in the US (which is measured by radio airplay. It has not hit the chart yet, but it charted at #49 last week on a chart by Mediabase which uses the same information) i'm really pessimistic about the article's immediate future. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Dent May

I see you have deleted the "Dent May" article. I know little about preserving an article from deletion; but if you would like to see my comments about the value of that article in particular, you will find them in "Dent May," on the talk page of the editor who recommended the article for speedy deletion.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to restore a copy to your user page so that you can continue to work on it there until it's ready for mainspace? Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but there's no need to do that. I don't have anything else to put on the page. I suppose I was thinking of it as what I think is called a "stub." This fellow Dent May appears to be a newcomer.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, take a look at this Google News search. If you add some of those citations to the article, it could very well meet notability standards. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked those news articles, one of which provides information that allows enlargement of the article to this:

Dent May is an American musician, from Taylor, Mississippi.[1]

As a "kitschy self-styled pop showman,"[2] May fronts a four-man indie pop ensemble called "Dent May & His Magnificent Ukulele,"[3] in which he sings and plays the eponymous stringed instrument. The group is signed to Paw Tracks.[4]

May was a member of a Mississippi power pop group called the Rockwells.[5]

If you think that that meets the notability requirement, then yes, please, restore the page. I'll give the article that form, with the references formatted as footnotes.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It should. Restored the page, please add those directly, before someone else flags it for deletion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Even though the five footnotes involved a total of only two references — namely, the MySpage page and the newspaper report — I formatted them individually, instead of as "name=[whatever]" multiples. Maybe I don't really know how those "name=[whatever]" things work, but they seem to complicate the editing process. If a future editor eliminates the footnote in which "name=[whatever]" is defined, the footnotes that depend on the definition are ruined — right?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bookkeeping Associations request for restoration

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

Ok, I've restored it to your userspace at User:NilssonDenver/Bookkeeping associations. Please make improvements to it at that space, at least until it addresses WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I could restore it to userspace, but it would likely get deleted again, because it's really not ready for "prime time" (mainspace). Once you've made improvements to it in your userspace, feel free to move it back to its original location. If you need help assessing whether or not it's got enough content to exist in mainspace without being deleted, feel free to drop me a note. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you put it back now. I have made it a proper article. There is not much to it and it requires others to add more bookkeeping associations from around the world. But it is also vital for other bookkeeping articles to link to it. Thanks --NilssonDenver (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I could, but there really still aren't any references or independent sourcing to be more than a list of other organizations. I'd rather you worked on it a bit more, since it still fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Since you've done GA reviews for a few D&D articles, I was wondering if you could comment at the FAC for Ravenloft (D&D module), here. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't feel up to commenting in FA space, until I actually have more FA/FL work under my belt. I'm much more comfortable in the GA space. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just thought I'd mention it. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for vote

Hi Jclemens,

We have done some discussion at WP:CCISTF, and we are holding a vote to create WikiProject: Computer Security. Any task forces that may fall under it will be created later, but we would like your vote. Thank You, Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We're up for vote at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Computer_Security for approval. We need one more approval to get the project started :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've voted support. It's a good enough idea. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Persistent Vandal

User:96.252.74.4 Haas persistently vandalized the article Len Bias. Now I have reverted his edits multiple times, but it has continued. If you could please step in, it would be greatly appreciated.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is a better place to report these. If I'm on and not creating content, I will check it reasonably frequently. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song

Regarding your question, disagreements over reference format have died down, so I see no reason why you cannot complete your review. Geometry guy 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dr.Scott Peck

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dr.Scott Peck, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr.Scott Peck. Thank you. andy (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gygax FAC

Hey there! It's been an eventful day! Gygax has been opened for review. Also, the Gen Con GAN has been accepted, if you'd be interested in helping out with that. :) BOZ (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Beer Mile

I have a photo site with pictures from a couple of instances of this event and out of curiosity I followed some links, including one to Wikipedia. I was quite surprised to see the article marked for deletion with the following comment from you: "(WP:PROD, reason was 'non notable drinking game, made up one day at school'.)" I looked at the instructions for contesting this, but am unable to delete the tag as I'm unable to see the tag. Now, I've been unable to see the original article, so this is based solely on your deletion comment.

This event happens world wide. I personally know people who've participated in 3 countries, but I know there's more. I've participated with at least 100 runners. I'm curious to know what makes this 'non-notable'. To the people I know who participate (and there are many, many more), this is a serious albeit light hearted competition. This includes many people, male and female, from many walks of life. People I know who've participated have included doctors, lawyers, bankers, school teachers, research scientists, diplomats, and military personnel among others. They wouldn't agree with your statement.

If it's based on the content of the article, I would happily help to make the article better. If it's based on anything else then this deletion is in error. --Grandcrossgc (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not in error--Any article can be deleted if someone flags it for non-controversial deletion and no one removes that tag for 120 hours (five full days). The deletion message was from the editor who flagged it, not from me. If you want it back, I can put it back and nominate it for deletion, which gives you five days to come up with independent, reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song

I see during our edit conflict on Talk:Brenda Song/GA2, you passed the article. I was going to recommend the same thing, as I patched together a Critical reception section and clean it up. Glad to see it pass! —Mattisse (Talk) 03:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry about that, I didn't even notice the edit conflict. I was just finally getting time to look at it with fresh eyes. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see it finally done. Unfortunately, it is an article that is vandalized a lot, so I try to keep an eye on it. Thanks for passing it as that ends a long chapter on a good note. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kampyle

Hi Jclemens, you speedily deleted this article yesterday. Could you please check the previous revisions? It used to be a legitimate article about a geometric curve; I assume someone hijacked it for advertising purposes. Thanks, Reyk _YO! 04:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You sure you got the right article? I don't see a verion of the article that looks anything like that. Want me to restore it and userify it under your page so you can work on/with it? Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The article had been moved to Kampyle of Eudoxus, and it's the resulting redirect that's been hijacked. I've re-created the redirect. Cheers, Reyk _YO! 04:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Works for me! Never hesitate to tell me if I've screwed up and deleted something useful. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Singa goody

Good call on this one. As I watched the correspondence on the talk page, I became concerned with the tone of the conversation. I'm glad you intervened in this instance. Best regards. --OliverTwisted 07:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI, your calls are getting noticeably better, too. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

;o) --OliverTwisted 07:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

secondary source for Acharya S

Hi Jclemens, I thought you might be interested in Clinton Bennett, In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images, which has a short section on Acharya S: [6]. Since this is coverage in an independent secondary source, this may be sufficient to establish notability and therefore restore her article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much--I'll check it out! Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Katherine Curtis

I went to update the Katherine Curtis page (another of her fan convention segments has been made public on YouTube) and discovered that it had been deleted. The reason was 'No reliable sources to verify notability independent from Naked News.'

Is the Least I Could Do website not a reliable source? There already was a reference to the page on "Least I Could Do" where Sohmer talks about their interview with her and includes an embeded YouTube video of their interview.

Could you please put this page back up? --Threkk (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I make no judgement about the sources--another editor lited her via the WP:PROD process. After five days of no one contesting the prod, I or another admin will delete any prodded article that wasn't obviously prodded in bad faith. Upside is, to get it back, all you have to do is ask, like you just did. Feel free to include new and better sources. Let WP:RS be your guide. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy decline on Camp Galileo

Is User:The undertow an admin? TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 04:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No... I'd thought (upon cursory inspection) User:DJ Clayworth had removed the tag, rather than just fixing it. Actually, that's from so long ago, that he might not have been an admin then, either. At any rate, feel free to Prod or AfD it, it doesn't look sufficienly NN that a speedy would be warranted. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hichkas

Hi, I was looking for notable Iranian bands and the BBC says Hich Kas is one. [7]. Unfortunately this band has been deleted by PROD, and the article didn't look too bad from the google cache, I therefore request that you restore it. Juzhong (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please add that source--good find. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: adminship

Thanks for the comment, but I don't think I'm ready yet. Maybe sometime in the future. Anyways, I guess our Veronica Mars work has come to a standstill. ;) I am pretty happy with our work with the topic, so I don't think it warrants much more work. I will continue to improve the episodes, but this will take place over a long time. Also, what do you think about resuming our aim to get the main page to FA? Despite the way the first FAC went, I don't think the article is too far away from FA status. The sourcing issue has definitely improved, and if Giggy is still willing to copyedit the article, I would be more than happy to resume work. Your thoughts...? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not done forever. We need to recruit more level-headed admins to keep the zoo running smoothly, so I can get back to writing articles. :-) I'm working with the team trying to get Gary Gygax to FA. After that, assuming it's successful, I'd love to help out on VM some more. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Block

Can you tell what I was vandalising, in detail? 75.91.169.43 (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies for that error. I should have used {{uw-hblock}} instead of {{uw-vblock}}. Now that you're unblocked, please, go forth and contribute productively to the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To me it seems a detail into why I was blocked, but non the less I was block. I don't know who I was harassing. I was stating my point to two other administrators on my talk page, and before that another administrator was vicious towards me from the beginning. I have e-mailed Jimbo during my absence and he thinks the comments the other admin made weren't appropriate, but other admins can't see that. Can you tell me who I was harassing? Fiestly (admin) stated that I was harassing on Jimbo's talk page which I wasn't. Can you please clarify? 75.91.169.43 (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking back over your contributions, I don't see a single thing that's helped build an encyclopedia. Go build an encyclopedia or go away, your call, doesn't make any difference to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You blocked me. It seems for no reason now because you couldn't give me an instance of harassment. How often does Jimbo come around? 75.91.169.43 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You just posted to this page after instructed not to. What better example of harassment do you need? Post here again and you will be blocked again. I reiterate: build an encyclopedia or leave. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to post under you above message, anyway I put it on my userpage if you can help. 75.91.169.43 (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Yaf

Hello. Just wanted to drop you a note that I un-deleted the User talk:Yaf page you had deleted two weeks ago because the user has returned to active editing. I also advised the editor that WP:RTV indicates that {{db-user}} cannot be used to delete user talk pages unless the user is opting for the permanent, accounting-scrambling RTV. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. Jclemens (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio on Shri Krishan Institute of Engineering & Technology

Hi Jclemens

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that there was no blatant copyright violation in the above-captioned article, but I have provided more detail on Talk:Shri Krishan Institute of Engineering & Technology, and would appreciate it if you could take another look. Tx, Bongomatic 21:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

From WP:CSD "Blatant copyright infringement. Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving." Note the emphasis. I found parts of the page non-infringing from the original URL. Are you asserting that there's no non-infringing content on the page? Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Steven Toushin

Hi Jclemens! You wrote "Speedy declined. It may be COI, but it makes reference to alleged RS's. Feel free to Prod/AfD" on the history tab of the Steven Toushin Wiki page. DreamGuy returned to our page and marked it for deletion. We object to the deletion and posted a response to the Steven Toushin discussion page. We would really like to save our page from deletion and would love to get some constructive criticism. If you could take a look at our discussion page, we would really appreciate your help. Thank you! --Bijouworld —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijouworld (talk • contribs) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposed deletion has been removed by another editor. Next step will probably be an "Articles for Deletion" (AfD) discussion. That is the most final and most involved of the three general deletion process (speedy, proposed deletion, deletion for discussion) That's not a particularly bad thing, in that it involves a lot of people looking over the article. In order to prep yourself for that, make sure you read and understand WP:RS and WP:N. Having reliable sources which demonstrate notability is the best way for an article to survive a deletion discussion. Neither speedy or proposed deletions look at the sources in detail, but an AfD will. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Querying the deletion of Alien Skin band/artist page

I am uncertain as to why you deleted the Alien Skin band/artist submission.

Justification was cited as being (A7 (group): No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion).

George Pappas (aka Alien Skin) harks from Real Life, who are well established historically in the 80’s Synthpop/New Wave music genres with numerous chart hits including the number one 80’s classic Send Me an Angel and are included in Wikipedia.

As Alien Skin he is also one of the more successful featured artists with the US label A Different Drum, also included in Wikipedia.

I have noted that many of the artists with far lesser credentials with have been allowed Wikipedia pages.

In as far as I understand it, the article submitted followed Wikipedia guidelines and was disqualified on the premise of “An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.” or, in other words, an assumption that Alien Skin is not significant enough an artists to merit inclusion according to your knowledge.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify your position as to his lack of notability.

Thank you. Alienskinmusic (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So, there are a couple of issues here:

• First, the article was well written, for what it was. That was a mark in your favor.
• Second, nothing in the article claimed notability per WP:MUSICBIO. George Pappas himself has no Wikipedia article--George Pappas is a professor. Even if he DID have an article, WP:NOTINHERITED notes that inherited notability from a musician to a band is for exceptional cases. The Traveling Wilburys might have been notable before they played a gig or released a single because of the inclusion of Bob Dylan, George Harrison, or Roy Orbison.... but this isn't that sort of a group, and Pappas isn't in that league. I did look at A Different Drum, and it appears to be a stub article full of redlinks, that admits it's an online venue. It looks to be notable itself, even with just the one source, but it isn't so notable that any particular record relased on it is inherently notable.
• Third, the article has been created (and deleted) twice previously. In each of these three cases, the username of creation had a potentially WP:COI-indicating name, and in the first two cases, zero other contributions to Wikipedia. That's a hallmark of self-promotion, rather than a fan outpouring of admiration. Wikipedia is not for promoting bands--although I agree, there are a lot who seek to use us for that purpose--it's for documenting bands that are notable.

At this point, I'd be happy to restore a copy of the article to your userspace, where you can work on it. That article needs independent, reliable sources to document attention Alien Skin has received in industry or mainstream press. this Google News search shows nothing, while a standard Google search shows a lot of sites that I know to be unreliable (myspace, blogspot) or non-independent (alienskinmusic, adifferentdrum), and others of whose reliability and independence I am unsure. Alternatively, it may make more sense to start a Wikipedia article for this George Pappas, and include Alien Skin as a section in his bio--same notability criteria apply, but if the article is about Pappas' career rather than this one act, Real Life news coverage is perfectly fine. That is, even if Alien Skin fails our inclusion criteria, Pappas hiself almost certainly passes, and per WP:NNC can be covered in his article. I know that's a lot of nuanced wiki-reasoning, so feel free to ask followup questions. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Mars task force

Replied on your talk page. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've already created a userbox for the task force since I had an idea for one; but I can easily modify it for use in another project if such ground has already been covered. You can check out my version at: User:Hornoir/User Veronica Mars task force. Please let me know either way. Thanks again. hornoir (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been in touch with Cornucopia and he's passed the design mantle on to me. I'll keep you informed on the matter, of course, and — in the meantime — all suggestions are welcome. hornoir (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, your userboxes look cool, but what happens if we end up redirecting the main cast into Characters of Veronica Mars? A to-do list would be to improve that article and Locations of Veronica Mars, both of which are combinations of multiple smaller, non-notable articles. Our overall goal is to get VM to a Featured Topic, by condensing articles into that which can be made into good articles or better. Knock yourself out with the task force page design--I'm more concerned with content creation/improvement. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, should we change the locations to "Location of" instead of "Locations in"? I think it would be better to be consistent, e.g. "Characters of" and "List of". Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, caught my typo while I was at dinner, eh? Actually, we might want to make Characters... a list article. I really don't care what things are named, but yes, I agree that consistency is good. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Like Characters of Lost? I personally really dislike the Lost character page, mainly because it provides no information whatsoever. I'd rather an article, like Characters of Smallville. The article would need more work, but I would be willing to do it. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Veronica Mars‎}} now has a template to add to talk pages of articles. I'll start work on the task force page next. hornoir (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jwh3

Hi there. I note that you jumped in to the fray regarding the rather contentious AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Hunter_(film_director). User:Jwh3 is continuing to throw more insults around regarding the AFD. So far, the consensus has been to delete the article as non-notable, but User:Jwh3 refuses to follow WP:CIVIL in the discussions after several warnings. Your assistance or direction would be much appreciated. Chasingsol (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I weighed in on the AfD. He hasn't replied to any of my posts on his talk page, so I'm not going to add more there unsolicited. I get the feeling that he isn't going to get past his article, and I still don't buy his protests that he's not that person, being rejected as NN. Unfortunate, but somewhat unavoidable. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your WP:BITE comment, at least in regards to myself. It can be easy to get caught up in contentious discussions where there is obvious consensus, but fail to assume good faith from the sole dissenter, regardless of any other concerns.Chasingsol (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, now you're a target too... Chasingsol (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Don't worry, I have a pretty thick skin. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to! I don't spend much time on Wikipedia apart from surfing, but when I take the occasional foray in to it's workings, I always get far more than I had planned on seeing. Kept me interested this past weekend, even if it turned out a little on the weird side. Chasingsol (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Message for Jclemens: I want to thank you for being the only user to show any kind of objective intelligence regarding the recent farse that took place. I am user JWH3. I no longer wish to use this account, and would like to delete it from this website completely. If I cannot delete it, then I would like to render up to you my password because I will no longer be using this account. I dont see any link that allows one to delete their account. Also I want to add that the recent accusations of me being a sock puppet are false. I simply logged in and edited after my IP address was recycled. The original antagonist in the matter User:Omarcheeseboro reported me as a sock puppet because I nominated two of his lackluster boring creations for deletion. I realize that new user's on Wikipedia have no power whatsoever, that all belongs to the administrators. I wish to disassociate myself with this website and all users who operate it. Your help will be much appreciated. User:Jwh327 December 2008

Editor Review

Hi. I've appreciated your feedback in the past. I've opened an Editor Review here: [8]. If you have a spare minute, I would welcome any advice you might have. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Mars task force update

I've completed a live and active task force page. You can find it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Veronica Mars task force. Please add your name to the membership ABOVE mine (I shouldn't be first, I just wanted to put a name in there to show where it goes proper like). The right hand side has room to grow, obviously, which will allow for membership growth and any additional sections you might want to add. If you guys need further help with design stuff, let me know. hornoir (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppetry by Fagz

Dear Jclemens, you have just blocked Fagz for vandalism. I suspect he might either be the puppet master or puppet under 24.98.214.244. As you can see from the edits made at the article List of emo artists's history], I can see a similarity between both user's vandalism. Please handle this case because I don't know how to. Thank you! Optakeover^(Talk) 05:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited since I blocked the account, so odds are that yes, it was him, and yes, he's autoblocked. If you see him again, you can ping me here, but going straight to AIV is also a good bet--I'm not up 24/7. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Esenthel Engine

Hello Jclemens,

A few days ago I was looking over Wikipedia's list of game engines [9], and found one entry, the Esenthel Engine to suit my interest. However, its corresponding article was recently deleted for reasons I do not know. Could you explain to me why it was removed? As a wikipedia user, I found the article pretty useful actually.

Erikekahn (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It was proposed for deletion and unchallenged for five days. I've restored it per your request. Feel free to improve it--the prod'ing editor's comment was "non notable software" which should be addressed. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hi, and I hope you and your family have a safe and happy holiday season. Best regards for the new year. ;o) --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 01:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 02:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Merry Christmas!
		DiverseMentality is wishing you a Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Stay safe! DiverseMentality 08:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I'm not sure if my message is as appealing as the ones above, but Merry Christmas! :) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 09:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, flashiness in the message isn't as important as the camaraderie underlying the relationship. Hey, we've finally got a VM TF! :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And isn't it cool? By the way, why haven't you signed up yet? :P Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah... I got around to it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete the article on Davis Sable? Do you even know about the Tyranta series? No? I don't know you, I've never spoken to you, so how would you know about Tyranta issue going on between the Tyranta readers and a bunch of the Wikigestapo? I know that Largoplazo would've asked the first administrator he saw, "Want to speedily delete an article whose author I hate? Now she won't even have a chance to plead her case!" That article did establish notability, the source established it, along with the links in the source to other sites that establish notability. If the Wikigestapo thought as much about this as they did on deleting articles, Wikipedia would be a thriving community that didn't have to ask for donations in sheer desperation.

Linda Mancia (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

this edit shows that you know exactly why "your" articles are deleted: they're non notable, as demonstrated by their complete lack of reliable sources. Wikipedia is neither your vanity site nor a place to launch a career; feel free to start articles once the general press has noticed the work or author in question. Until then, don't act surprised when they are removed as inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding AIV

Sorry about the jumping to the AIV post. I'm using TW and I'm sort of new at it. You're totally right that I took this to the wrong place and I apologize. I've had this fight before (with a different user) and I got really frustrated really fast.

I will note, however, that I cannot post on this users talk page because s/he appears to jump IPs (probably his service provider). The edit history of the page shows these similar edits coming from various IPs.

Again, sorry for the trouble and thanks for your civility in light of my error. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 22:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's more than one IP in question, there is a way to report such a pattern, see WP:GAIV--just because I didn't see anything particularly objectionable in that one IP doesn't mean that there might not have been other problematic edits that were either hidden amongst some relatively legitimate ones (e.g., removing a statement that had a longstanding fact tag), or on another IP address. One other reason for tagging IP address' talk pages with warnings is that it demonstrates to the reviewing admin that 1) you've done everything you can, and 2) the person keeps on going despite multiple warnings. Especially in borderline cases, where the contributions are more along the line of tagging things with OR (I looked at two where he did that--one I agreed with, since the article used just one source without footnoting, while the other I couldn't see what his basis for complaint was). Dealing with someone who holds a strongly divergent opinion on a very emotional topic is among the most difficult things to do well in Wikipedia. Frankly, it's a lot easier to deal with people who just put wanton vulgarity into articles: WP:RBI. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Magic items

Thanks for the support. :) Regarding the recentism (which is a problem in more than a few D&D articles - some people are under the mistaken notion that the most current edition should get the most coverage, or be mentioned first in any D&D article), that is primarily due to the fact that the second half of the article was moved, copied and pasted, from an article I didn't write. :) (And, the fact that I never went back to fix it.) The first half, yeah, I was lazy and didn't source it too much at all, but I tried to be as edition-generic as possible. It's on my list of hundreds of things to fix before I die. ;) Regarding the AFD, it seems it will likely be a Keep, or a No consensus since no one's agreeing where to merge it to. :) BOZ (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to survey how many players came into D&D at each of the various editons, and how many person/hours were spent playing each of the editions. I started with D&D Basic set, but played AD&D 1st ed from 1980 until 1990 or so. I have a hard time caring about later versions, even though I picked up a copy of the 3.5 rules and a few OGL products. Oh, and BTW, I only vote my conscience. It's pure coincidence that I often tend to agree with frequent collaborators. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You left off on D&D right about when I was picking up! My friend had told me about the game for a few years when he finally ran a BD&D session in 1987 for me on my birthday, and another the following year. The year after that, he got me the brand-new AD&D PHB & DMG, and Dragonlance Adventures and I played a session of the game and a few more on other occasions. (And, thusly, I somehow managed to totally skip 1E AD&D and never played it at all...) Maybe a year later, another friend of mine noticed the books on my shelf and said, "I've always wanted to try that game..." and we started playing regularly and I've never looked back since! Dry spells here and there, yeah, but so far I've always come back to it. Joined a 3E group in 2001 and have been with them ever since - there was some talk of 4E, but we're sticking with our large monetary investment for the foreseeable future. ;) That, and the incompatability of characters would more or less force us to give up our current campaigns.

I never need to buy another RPG again. I've had a bazillion RPGs over the years. Palladium, Chaosium, Rolemaster, and Hero System have been my favorites--along with AD&D 1st ed, of course. I've owned more (a few GURPS books) and played some others (Chill, Twilight 2K) Frankly, rules are pretty much irrelevent for an experienced GM. I bought the Traveler original edision reprints for nostalgia's sake, but the version I'd played years ago had been so modified... At any rate, the key thing about role playing is the GM's self confidence and the players' wilingness to go along with the story. I could run absolutely any type of game I wanted to with Hero System rules. Thing is, I haven't played at all for almost a decade. RPG'ing takes too much time, and I have family and work obligations. (sigh) Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(Back on topic) but then again, magic items in AD&D 1st Edition were so intriguing. There was all sorts of rules-abuse you could do with them. A luckstone, for example, was horrendously abusive. Take one luckstone. Drink two potions with ongoing, positive effects. 11% chance (up from 1%) that one becomes permanent, and all the major bad side effects are no longer possible. I did that with Water Breathing and Stone Giant Strength, and the GM rolled the Stone Giant Strength permanent... Who needs a wish to raise an attribute 1/10th of a point at a time above 16? That was a much faster way to raise strength four points at once. Ah, the silly monty haulishness of AD&D items! Portable holes were the best--fill a 10' deep 10' diameter hole with loot! No extra weight, unlike those silly bags of holding. :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, people will always try to be clever. :) I don't believe the items were designed to bend the system like that, but rather it's impossible to anticipate everything that players would try to do. I recently read somewhere that someone had decided to take advantage of 3E's rule of "you can pass an item to another character as a free action in a round" to pass something down a long line of characters that would essentially happen so quickly that the item would move as fast as a bullet. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm a born rules lawyer and powergamer. For the last 10 years, I've made a rather good living in large part by writing and interpreting policies. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Gort cloud deletion discussion

I believe you marked the article as "Likely neologism largely sourced to one author's work." Today, I've added addition references to discussions of the green community. I hope this helps. Please advise.Milaben (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I've changed my !vote to neutral on the AfD page. Keep improving it, it looks a lot better (and more worthy of inclusion) than the version that I first saw. You're certainly on the right track, and I would be surprised if it's deleted after these improvements. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

CrunchBang Linux

Resolved

 – This has been done. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any details on why CrunchBang Linux was deleted - could you elaborate? Thanks. -- Ace NoOne 15:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace NoOne (talk • contribs)

Another editor used the proposed deletion process to recommend it for deletion. After five days of no other editor challenging that status, I deleted it as routine cleanup. If you'd like, I can restore it, and a future deletion attempt will have to go through the full WP:AfD process. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you restore the article, I'll see whether I can improve it. Thanks! -- Ace NoOne 10:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace NoOne (talk • contribs)

Unification Church vs biscuits

Re this comment, if you want a serious reply; at a quick skim there are two reasons one is having a harder time than the other. UC relies on two sources, one of which is primary (valid in this case, but primary sources tend to set alarm bells off because not everyone understands the nuances of when you can and can't use them). In addition, these are sources that would require (gasp) thinking to check out, whereas the biscuit article cites sources that, whilst undoubtedly reliable, are "easily digested" newspaper coverage as opposed to complex theological debates. In addition, there's no obvious merge target for the biscuits (or I'd have put it there in the first place when I wrote it), whereas there are multiple potential "positions of the UC" potential merge targets. Plus, the combination of "religion" and "sex" is a poisonous one in Wikipedia's current hysterical climate, and some people are reluctant to comment on discussions like this for fear of being plastered across the attack sites.

From experience, I'd be very surprised if either article is deleted; they both appear to have been nominated by people who don't really understand the point of the articles. I'm not going to comment on the UC AFD as it's a topic I know nothing about – and in all honesty, don't have enough of an opinion on to spend the time researching sources. Give it time; for obvious reasons, a lot of people interested in religious articles aren't very active on Sundays. – iridescent 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't too serious of a comment. Hrafn is back and nominating or advocating Unification Church articles for deletion again, and I'm not really interested in anyone enacting de-facto Wikipedia censorship of any religious movement. The Google News sources he derides are going to be rather hard to refute once I bother to take the time to cite them from EBSCOhost or ProQuest. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete my user page

I am not a bad person. I worked hard on that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So keep it somewhere else--problem solved. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Thank-you for defending me, I really do appreciate that so much. Thank-you! for seeing my hard work & your postitive comments--Standforder (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Herbert Tailors

Dear Sir

I recently posted a small, short article about Henry Herbert Tailors. I thought this was of interest because of its heritage association to Henry Herbert - the original Master of the Revels to King Charles I & II, of which there is a Wiki entry, coupled with the fact that they are a London tailoring company which is also of interest. It was short, small and I thought informative and I would be very grateful if you could re-consider posting it?

Yours

Charles Baker —Preceding unsigned comment added by CortoMaltese007 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Baker, the fundamental problem with the article in question--and it was an otherwise reasonable article, if memory serves--was that it failed to explain to a reader why HHT was an important or notable business. Simply resurrecting an old brand name doesn't explain why this particular business should be included--keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than a business directory. Do nobility currently shop there? Has there been some scandal covered by the press? Have any of the business' product lines won a major or important industry award? There are many paths to notability, and almost all of them involve finding references to reliable sources which document the achievements. Is there some link besides the brand name and the Kings Charles? If you'd like, I can restore a copy of the article as deleted, for you to work on in your user space to address these issues. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I do see what you mean, but it seems a bit of a catch 22! I think they are of note. All I can find other what I have written is a couple oif news articles that have been written about them - such as on Urban Junkies. They are unusual, as aprt from ressurecting the Henry Herbert name, they are also the only tailors in London who do everythign by their fleet of Vespa scooters! Please can you help me to get it listed as I think it is a note worthy piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CortoMaltese007 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry, but I don't see anything that leads me to believe that they've been mentioned in multiple reliable sources. The phrase "Henry Herbert Tailors" yields six google hits: one shop, the Urban Junkie site, and four prompted by your posting to Wikipedia. Google News, Books, and Scholar each have zero hits for that phrase. If no press outlet has ever covered them, then I simply don't see how there can be enough reliable sources to meet verifiability, let alone establish notability. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

William Welch

That was just proposed for PROD today... I thought it should be five days? (I'm just bringing this up procedurally, with no thoughts either way, the article is the favorite target for a certain banned user, that's why it's on my watchlist) SirFozzie (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It was in the Prod Summary for deletion... checking. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, a new account put a post-dated dated prod template on it; shame on me for not seeing that. Restored it and indef blocked that account. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Arc (band)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I no longer intend to participate in creating or editing ANY of Wikipedia's articles since an article (short and still to be improved, perchance) I created about a band ARC (including a notable guitarist John Turnbull) has been deleted by you.

I see no point why the Free Encyclopedia should not contain articles about music. Arc was not a very popular group. It has, however, released a very interesting rock album and it contained of John Turnbull, which is included as an entry in Wikipedia.

The links I included turned out to be dead, but I intended to improve them, as I found the pages again on new URL. I failed to do this, as I found out the page has been removed.

I don't know what a band has to to do be "notable". Does it need to be Led Zeppelin or whatever?!

Call it as you wish, I call it censorship.

Yours sincerely, Polonais —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polonais (talk • contribs) 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS are the governing policies and guideline, WP:MUSICBIO is a shorthand for the minimum threshholds a music act must meet to be kept in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Crit. No.6: "Contains at least one notable musician" (vide John Turnbull and Mickey Gallagher) Polonais (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Polonais

(ec) John Turnbull makes no assertion that he is a notable musician, either. I've nominated his article for deletion, since you brought it to my attention. That pretty much knocks the legs out of that argument. Look, if you want them to have an article, go find press coverage and include it: demonstrate why they're notable, don't just assert that they are. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gallagher looks more promising, but his article doesn't appear to be sourced to independent reliable sources. If he was, in fact a member (not a hired musician) with both The Clash and The Animals, he certainly deserves his own article. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, why not delete Mickey Gallagher at once? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polonais (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Because his article makes an assertion of notability--that's all it takes to keep an article on a band from being speedily deleted. You don't have to have a reference to a charting single, for instance, just a statement that a particular song by the group charted. Of course, an unsubstantiated assertion will be uncovered in an WP:AfD process, and the article will likely be deleted later anyways, but an assertion of notability is the "cover charge" for Wikipedia: gotta have that to be here. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's mad. I've shown you the criterion -- The band is notable if it "Contains at least one notable musician". There's one more I like very much, though can hardly see it in this case: Wikipedia:UCS "Use common sense". If a band had some notable musicians, who -- later or earlier -- collaborated with some notable groups or musicians, and if we believe that the band is notable if it "Contains at least one notable musician" then it is logical that I find Arc notable in terms of Wikipedia's criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polonais (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop reading to try and win your case, and start reading to try and understand Wikipedia's goals. Look, for instance, at the last bit of clause 6: "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply."

And at the final note for the entire section "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article."

Gallagher has only been a member of The Animals since 2003, according to the article--hardly their heyday. Per the guidelines, he really ought to be redirected to their article, and someone else might just do that in the future.

Addendum: Looks like he was also briefly a member in 1965, which is more promising, but still not conclusive. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've given you links to read and plenty of time explaining what you need to do, as an editor, if you want these topics covered. I'm not seeing any point in continuing this conversation. Feel free to ask for help in formatting references to demonstrate notability, but I'm going to ignore any further argumentation from you on this topic. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Margaret L. Kripke

Based on discussion over Wikipedia talk:Friendly#over-tagging, where a Wikipedian basically pitched a little hissy fit related to the tagging of an article and moved it to userspace and had it deleted, would you mind if I restore User:KP Botany/Margaret L. Kripke over your speedy deletion and move it back to mainspace? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, especially in light of my comments at that user's talk page, but thanks for checking. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I've restored the article and placed it back in the main namespace, and also made an edit of substance of my own to prevent a recurrence of the earlier situation (i.e. it can't be G7'd now). SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lee - no need to double userfy

The article was userfied on September 18, 2008 - User:Spartaz/Musician. There is no need to userfy again to another location. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, there's no reason to have it in mainspace until and unless DRV restores it, right? It may be overkill on the niceness front, I suppose. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said it should be kept in mainspace, but now edit historys being in various places will muck up things more. We have possible sockpuppet issues going on as well so that is part of whay this is so scattered around already. I would suggest to take the exiting page and merge the edit history as well as the talk page to User:Spartaz/Musician where it has resided and been worked on since the first batch of AFD/DRV's. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. What a mess. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Application of A7 To Rolando (video game)

Resolved

 – Thanks for your time :) Mod.torrentrealm (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A7 can only be applied to "An article about a real person, an organization, or web content". Rolando is a video game, which I believe would come under 'software'. In the A7 rule on wikipedia it also states that, "A7 applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on."

In conclusion I would like to request that you re-establish the Rolando page. Mod.torrentrealm (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're correct--I should have deleted it as A1 or A3, since the entire content of the article was "Rolando is a video game for the iPhone." I mistakenly selected the pre-populated tag instead of one matching the actual problem with the article. Feel free to recreate the article using the content I just provided as a basis, but I would strongly encourage you to add more content before you hit 'save page' the first time. Anyone may recreate most deleted pages, and there's no penalty for doing so in good faith. Please let me know if you have any more trouble. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't know the content of the article. I would have deleted it as well. I was jsut contesting the grounds it was deleted on. Sorry, I thought you deleted an informative, useful article.

Nicholas Fryett

YOU DELETED MY PAGE NICHOLAS FRYETT AND I AM DISGUSTED. PUT IT BACK ON WITH AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT OR I WILL TAKE THIS MATTER FURTHER LEGALLY, WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT NICHOLAS FRYETT IS A FAMOUS BUSINESSMAN AND MY ARTICLE IS 100% FACTUAL, SO WHY DON'T YOU ALSO DELETE THE PAGE ON PETER JONES AND SIR ALAN SUGAR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimorjaria (talk • contribs) 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User indef blocked per WP:LEGAL for this post. Once the threat is rescinded, we can talk about how to appropriately demonstrate Mr. Fryett's notability. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Edward Carr

Hi, I see you deleted the article above. Would you mind deleting Template:Bryan Edward Carr as well, where the same user has created (I imagine) the same content with the intention of hiding it from NP patrol. I was going to TfD it, but as it doesn't have a snowball's chance in a certain fiery place, I thought that contacting you would be more efficient. Thanks. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the template speedy deletion criteria apply and it isn't G11-worthy, so I userified it and let the creator know. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Greeting

Wish You a haapy new year.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Robert Eric Wone

An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert Eric Wone, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Eric Wone. Thank you. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out Bachcell (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Expired prods

Hi Jclemens, when you delete the expired prods could you please remember to include the reason given in the Prod notice, for example here's one deleted by Nancy: I Forget. Thanking you. RMHED (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At one point, it would automagically copy them--now it doesn't. The rationales are usually variations of "non-notable" and "likely hoax." What is the value-add for closing admins who aren't using manual tools copying prod rationales? I wouldn't have stopped bothering if I perceived a value. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

For non-admins who can't see the deleted article it can be useful to know why it was prodded. RMHED (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi! I just noticed that my page regarding Pirates Online was deleted and read the discussion coming from it. I'm totally fine with the deletion and just wanted to clear this up with all users who were nominating it, so maybe if you could spread the word around! First: I didn't know you couldn't have your own personal pages with information, because I had seen other users with the same sorts of things on their personal pages (e.g. Brethren Court, etc.). Second: I wasn't aiming on threatening vandalism tags with everyone – there was a specific person, whose IP and various accounts (accused of sockpuppetry) had been personally harassing me and it was agreed between myself and a few administrators that the more he put my mainpage/talk pages, etc. up for speedy deletion, the more vandalism tags he would be given. Hence, I had posted a notice, specifically for him. I'm sure I should've been more clear about that. That is all, and thanks so much for telling me what I should've been doing, I didn't know I couldn't have my personal page on that. Haha, by the way, I would be a "her", not a "him" ;) Regards, BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem--WP:AGF works; I simply expected that you weren't familiar with those specific expectations. Being unresponsive on a holiday weekend isn't a mark against you, either. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Need advice on a page move

Hi, Jclemens. You've been kind and helpful in the past, and it looks like you're online at the moment. Do you have time to give me some advice on a possible page move due to naming conflict? If so, please take a peek at E.H. Jones (football coach, no space between initials, apparently no real name) and E. H. Jones (military author, real name Elias Henry Jones, space between initials). There are redir pages for the military guy at Elias Henry Jones and EH Jones. Whew. My question: What do you recommend as the optimum final state for articles, redirs and DAB pages? I'm thinking move the military guy to his real name and make a DAB page, but I'm not sure. I can either do the moves myself or post them it to WP:Requested moves if you have an idea. Regards, Chuckiesdad 04:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For only two people, the recommended course of action is just to hatnote between them. That is, you want something like "For the military author, see Elias Henry Jones" on E.H. Jones and variants thereof, and reciprocal ones on the football coach. DAB pages are generally recommended when there are three or more reasonably possible alternatives. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Chuckiesdad 04:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Stalkers?

Just curious... How many people do I have who've watchlisted this page? 'Fess up and sign your name if you have. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Alright, you caught me! :P Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

   You, I expected. :-) I'm more curious to see who else shows up. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find out how to message you privately

so here's my gripe. you just deleted a page i worked on for a half an hour. i (much like MANY in the south bay) like that band, and if you bothered looking at their myspace, you'd see they got nearly 1,000 plays today, so i'm sure they are respected and known enough in the south bay for it to be significant... but i mean, hey, a band that plays with acts as known as like eek-a-mouse, rebelution and kottonmouth kings can just be pigeon holed into your "crappy myspace bands" that you've so cleverly asserted (and thus inculcated your delight in deleted them). but hey, you're right, stinky pinky isn't nearly as important as season eight of buffy. good work chum. a life well lived.

now have me deleted like the chump you are.

does season eight of buffy get over 1000 hits a day? just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatterbrain83 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that you lost half an hour. If you'll take a few minutes to read WP:MUSICBIO, you should see what should be asserted for an article about a musician to continue existing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for promoting new musical acts, it's for cataloguing those who have already "made it" to the point they've achieved notability. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, this is a perfectly fine place to contact me. I believe in openness; anything related to any actions I've taken on Wikipedia should be discussable here.

what about buffy? full essays on ONE episode. you think that's worthy? PLUS, i asked for an extension so it wouldn't be deleted... they've been written about in various newspapers and magazines. you didn't even give me 20 minutes before the page was gone. you obviously have something against "crappy myspace bands," as you've said so yourself. i think you're just on a power trip. enjoy it.

i know for a fact and just paid $25 to watch them play last week with Shwayze and the place was packed. That's what inspired this article, the fact that they are WELL known in that part of Los Angeles. They're already established locally and it isn't just some ad.

and please, how many people look at your buffy contributions a day... 10? sincerely curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatterbrain83 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

1. 7 Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

you didn't give me anytime to demonstrate the fact that there is a PROMINENT reggae scene in southern california, which stinky pinky is a representative of. doubt you've ever been to hermosa beach, though. or south bay in general.

Nothing asserted in the article met any aspect of WP:MUSICBIO; your disparagement is not compelling. You are, however, free to rewrite the article in light of the guidelines. If the next version of the article asserts notability, it won't be speedily deleted. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

you've now insinuated your cowardice by not address the triviality of your silly buffy articles. can you please explain the significance of a thousand words on ONE episode?? how many hits a day? i will, and i'm also going to report you. i think you get off on deleting "crappy myspace bands," don't bother taking that down, my screenshot will go with my complaint and assertion that you're out to get bands that are becoming noteworthy. have a nice evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatterbrain83 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL; you will not be successful on Wikipedia if you persist in such behaviour. Future incivil posts to this page will result in your being blocked. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and feel free to report me to whomever you want. WP:AN/I would be a reasonable place to start. I have no intention of removing anything from this page aside from normal archival, and, for your information, past revisions of this page are freely viewable via the 'history' tab. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

i've said nothing insulting. the only REAL insult here is the fact that you have insulted me by both ignoring my request and deleting my work. there's nothing incivil about my writings. i merely want to know how many hits episode 4, of season 8 gets. i wanna know EXACTLY how important it is. please justify it.

ps. you're obviously british (behaviour), so yeah, you've never been to south bay of los angeles and know nothing of the prominent reggae scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatterbrain83 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

and buffy...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatterbrain83 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I missed the MySpace band reference at first.

And then I spotted the graphic at the top of your talk page. Fun. Now I want to make one of my own. :) All the best.sinneed (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the file, it's 16 months old, and I didn't make it. I just thought it was funny, although the Colbert reference is cruder than I find appropriate, I'm simply too lazy to write one of my own. As far as self-appropriating the "crappy myspace band" meme... who am I to say that a self-selected shoe doesn't fit? Jclemens (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to make one of my very own, but photoshopping out that particular crudity (how about "freaking"?) would make it work for me. Yeah, I followed the link over to commons and gave it a look... I wanted to see if I could change it without making anyone's hair catch fire, and when I saw it was a commons image I knew I was good to go. I don't feel like sleeping yet and I am sick of shooting vandaledits for the night and I am way too tired to do any serious editing. I'll see what I can shop out, heh.sinneed (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Et Voila:
If I did that wrong it won't live long, 1st upload to commons, but I'll fix the problem if there is one. If you don't want that cluttering up your talk page, please feel free to kill, of course. (for that matter, this whole section, if you like) All the best. :)sinneed (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great to me, thanks!

Warnings

Removing other people's comments on discussion pages is not done. See also WP:DTTR. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, making accusations of vandalism when there is a disagreement over edits is also not done, and could lead to your being blocked. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What, you would have preferred a personalized message explaining why your edit was disruptive? Oh, right... you ignored that one. Hence, a template for followup. Sorry, but there wasn't one handy for a specific WP:POINT violation. Given the context of my previous (and personalized) post to your talk page, I expected you'd be able to figure it out. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Stay off my Talk page. Any further crap from you there will be removed. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your further incivil response has been noted. Since I'm an involved admin, I won't be blocking you, but will be encouraging others to do so to the extent that your incivil and disruptive behavior continues. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Piranhas (baseball)

Resolved

 – restored

While doing some work on Twins articles, I was surprised to find that the Pirahna's article had recently been deleted. I guess I don't follow why this was done, as the Pirahna theme became a very popular angle not only locally, but on a national scale starting around 2006 and lasting into 2008. It's used less on the global scale (now that only one of the original members of the group is with the team), but I feel it's still a significant piece of Minnesota Twins lore. No less-so than other nicknamed groups that have since been disbanded (Purple People Eaters to stay within the state). Is there anyway this article could be restored if sufficient information regarding the history of the name and it's adoption? As well as media stories in which the current Twins players are referred to as "pirahnas"? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 19:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted without prejudice by the WP:PROD process, since one editor had tagged it for non-controversial deletion and no other editor had removed that for five days. I've restored it per your request. Please feel free to add additional information to the article, such as reliable sources which demonstrate notability of the term. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A note from the GACC

Hi there Jclemens!
	The Good Article Collaboration Center has been restarted, and since you are a member, we are asking for your help in making the articles Seinfeld, Sarah Palin, and President of the United States good articles. We hope to see you there. Cheers. --LAAFansign review 19:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Notice delivery by xenobot 13:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Murder of Robert Eric Wone

On January 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murder of Robert Eric Wone, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes for the future

Ironically, some of the deadlinks for Thomas Muthee might resurface later.

From the FAQ at http://www.archive.org:

Q. Why are there no recent archives in the Wayback Machine?

A. It generally takes 6 months or more for pages to appear in the Wayback Machine after they are collected, because of delays in transferring material to long-term storage and indexing. There is no access to files before they appear in the Wayback Machine.

Thought you might be interested to know. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 08:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Restore please

Could you please restore Danny Seward? --Deadly∀ssassin 10:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Saanich Police Department

Did someone add references after you made your comment in the AFD of this article? If not, please comment on why you deem the references to be weak. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Working from memory, I saw a lot of references to what appeared to be the department's own website(s). Those are nice to illustrate points, but they're not independent RS. Every article should have sourcing beyond that of the subject. Weak isn't insurmountable, it's just a description of a current inadequacy--a stage through which every article passes through in its lifecycle. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Heya :)

Wizards of the Coast failed its first FAC, but at least we have some knowledge of what is needed to promote it. If interested as either a reviewer or contributor, Forgotten Realms has been nominated for a GAN. We are also considering both Unearthed Arcana and Drizzt Do'Urden for GAN in the near future. BOZ (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I might pick up the UA GA review, but I'm going to fail it if it doesn't mention Drow by the time I get to it. (seeing as how my favorite uber-abusive AD&D PC was a drow female cleric-fighter) :-) On the other hand, I'm absolutely pegged on schoolwork, and leaving the country for a week, so I will be much less available on Wikipedia this term. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can whip out the book and add in a note about drow, though not sure at first thought how/where they appear. OK, good luck in all you do! :) BOZ (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Drow were the poster children for abusive, unbalanced races. It's not too hard to add 'em in to what's there already. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, got it - not sure what more needs to be said, but I've got an obligatory mention at least. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Here, have this.

Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

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

Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 18:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of John Resig

Could you please restore John Resig? The guy is definitely notable, and if I'd known that the article was in danger of being deleted, I would have put it higher on my get-around-to-it list. Thanks. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Restored, and prodded. Please add some more allegations of notability before removing the prod. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ben Brown (DJ)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ben Brown (DJ), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Brown (DJ). Thank you. Springnuts (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RWone

Check out this link. [10] If the link doesn't work, read the source comment field. There was speculation on this board that one of the people involved, DW, may have used a user name consistent with books had had published in the past, and that may hvae explained the ferocity of the attacks. For what it matters, I was far more concerned about the motives and ettiquette of this user than the poor fellow who got banned in just two days seemingly for stating people of one persuasion may have murdered one of another, that also concerns me very much. I have seen people banned in two days for merely trying to correct factual errors, but telling the people that they were uninformed idiots (which they were), but it was a quick way out the door. WP should be more tolerant of free speech, he was given warning for even commenting on traditional marriage. Bachcell (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. I wonder if that user really was one of the accused. Sorry, but BLP is about unsourced negative information. When a dozen papers have printed one's name, Wikipedia's hardly going to make any more difference. Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of text-based MMORPGs

I would appreciate it if you would leave a comment at Talk:List of text-based MMORPGs#Re: Threshold RPG. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your message

"I first heard the term while I was driving around with my wife"? That's nonsense, by my definition; and I was not the first to tag it as a G1, either. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Suggestions? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds good to me (G13?), but you'd have to propose it and get others to concur with you. Since I'm somewhat notorious in some circles as one of them eviallll deletionists, it might get a better reception coming from you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

S. A. Charron & Co

My name is Stephen Charron Jr. I am a college student at East Carolina University in Greenville, NC. I am very impressed but let down with the open mindedness of the editors of wikipedia. Please don't get me wrong. I commend you for your work. I think your motives in cleaning up the wiki-revolution should be well noted and respected, however, I disagree with the placing of small business, their history and their attibutes in the trash can. I must admit, I have very much to learn about the business world but I do know that wikinomics will revolutionize the way we live forever. I would like to make this note a referendum the wiki constitution by allowing small legitamate business the opportunity to make respectable history notes on wikipedia. I think this will change the way the world does commerce by allowing any and all to learn more about a business that they are interested in (speaking from experience (Business student)). After reading Wikinomics I walked away with the understanding that way of the future is a mass collaboration to record all things reputable. If the world's economy (Business) is not reputable then I look forward to correct those that want to correct me. Please undelete the listing that I made for my fathers business. If start adding coupons and contact information I would appreciate being put in check. —Preceding Stephen Charron Jr comment added by 150.216.229.21 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to recreate an article that asserts notability that is supported by independent reliable sources, and I expect you'll find the outcome different. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens. Your view of "Notiable information" and that of which I wrote seem to be butting heads. Let me clearify with explination.

Notability. Let me highlight a few of the quotes that stood out the most to me. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability", "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. –S. A. Charron & Co is a published web site supported by sitecube.com. The domain is the proof of the existance. By holding the domain rights to S. A. Charron & Co the third party creation is well established.

I appreciate your time and assistance in working with me to understand more about wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.32.137 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Go read WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. By your argument, anything that had a website would be notable--such is not the case. Trade publications, local newspaper coverage, and the like are good sources to establish notability. The domain registrar and your hosting service are both paid by the organization in question, and as such are not independent. This isn't just my view, it's an established consensus of how to interpret Wikipedia's core policies.

I will be gone for a week or so; feel free to contact any other administrator with further questions about notability for a company. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I can see that your nature is to fight change while enforcing the rules. I was merely trying to suggest a referendum to the way that wikis are transmitted to the world. I think that by allowing companies to historically note their upbringing while detailing the nature of their existence it would bring about improved mutual collaboration with B2B transactions. Your dismissive mannerisms are much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sac1128 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you can see nothing of my nature. If you would seek to change Wikipedia, first seek to understand it. I'm no particular defender of the status quo, nor opponent thereof, but what you're proposing shows a fundamental lack of understanding what Wikipedia is--without an understanding of the is the to be proposals are essentially justificationless. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Userbox Creation?

Jclemens, do you think you can make a userbox for Wikiproject Computer Security? I like the one for CCISTF An we would of course like to invite you to join us, after your assistance on WP:CCISTF. Could you teach me how to make one BTW? Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Easiest way to learn to make Userboxes is to copy one you like, and mess with it. :-) If you just want the same logo with the new Wikiproject name attached, I can certainly do that... but so can you, probably, if you have any coding background. Copy a userbox onto a user subpage, and then dink around with it. The revision system is automatic, so if you screw something up badly, undo and try again. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

okay, i got this thing created, but I'm confused. after making the code, I couldnt figure out how to host it on a page. I finally found the tool to do it for me, but I want to know how you did it.

here is what I have:{{User:Sephiroth_storm/Userboxes/Computer_Security_Userbox}}

How did you get the code onto this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Outreach/User Computer and Information Security task force Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I got it. {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security/Userbox}} correct? Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Troy 07 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

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

I hope you enjoyed your wikibreak! It's nice to have you again. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to have Internet access and be back in the USA again. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

question

see my user page for more details Katmairock Katmairock (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

David Ha'Ivri deleted again!

It seems that no matter how David Ha'Ivri is depicted, his article will never satisfy Wikipedia's self-appointed censors. Here's an idea- instead of deleting, try editing David Ha'Ivri so that it conforms to Wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.172.62 (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd asked nicely the first time, you could have had it restored by now. Now, you need to apologize for failing to assume good fait and then ask for it back. You might want to read WP:PROD to understand why "censorship" is a laughable invective to throw around in this situation. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

see my user talk page for more details for question above. Katmairock Katmairock (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pulsic

Im still not seeing a valid reason as to why this article was deleted. It had valid sources. I even wrote it FOR someone so as they would not be in conflict of interest. If you can find it in your heart, it would be just swell if that page could be resurected. :) the juggresurection ^{(>-.-(Vಠ_ಠ)} 03:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Myspace (for example) is not a reliable source.
2. Anything self-published does not confer notability.
3. There was no particular assertion of notability, e.g. per WP:MUSICBIO in the article to begin with.

Solve those, and it should be ready for mainspace. For the time being, I suggest recreating in userspace. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sepeda motor

As you removed the speedy tag - I have placed it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sepeda_motor - cheers SatuSuro 05:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That's always a good way to get more discussion when it doesn't quite meet speedy criteria. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed and I was suprised at the interest - cheers SatuSuro 10:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Veg*n

I would like to protest the A3 deletion of this soft redirect. Soft redirects are not supposed to be subject to Article CSD reasons and deletion methods, and instead are supposed to be deleted by Redirect CSD reasons and WP:RFD only. - TexasAndroid (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So what would you propose be done about it? It's a dictdef soft redirect and would likely have been deleted in an RfD anyways. Is there some compelling reason to put it back? Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Directing people to the proper home of dictionary defs is one of the uses of soft redirects. I thus disagree that it would be RFD deleted. But even if it was likely to be RFD deleted, I strongly oppose the use of Article CSD reasons for soft redirects. Allowing these deletions allows for a bad precedent to be set. If Soft Redirects are subject to article CSD, especially A3 and A5, then most if not all soft redirects could be quickly deleted this way. If someone wants to get a discussion going to stop the use of soft redirects, so be it, but for now they are in quite widespread use, and it's not a good thing to allow them to be deleted for something that is a part of the nature of soft redirects. Thus, Redirect CSDs and RFD, not Article CSDs and AFD.

As for what to do with it, my option would be to put it back and let it be. It was a perfectly functional soft redirect, serving the purposes of soft redirects, and did not need improvement or deletion IMHO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored it. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

←Hi. :) This was still templated and hanging out in CSD, and since you noted at the AfD that it had been speedily deleted I thought to investigate. I've removed the CSD template, but reopened the AfD simply by restoring to the previous version, since it's recent. If you want to close the AfD again, noting some other rationale, of course, that could work, but the closing statement was no longer accurate. On the other hand, if you want your close to stand, you may wish to remove the AfD template from the article and document the closure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaah, thanks for fixing that for me. No, that's exactly what I should have done, if I'd been less sleep deprived this morning. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem; happy if I could help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

T-minus(producer)

Why was this article deleted? What needed to be done for it to remain a valid article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanlavishlife (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd start the article in user space--I can provide you a copy of what was deleted for you to use as a starting point, if you like. Then, you need to find reliable sources that document his notability. A bazillion musical artists and rappers try and establish articles on Wikipedia. 9 in 10 such articles are trying to promote the group's notability and publicity, rather than document an already notable act. If you demonstrate why this article belongs in the latter category, you're golden. Jclemens (talk)

Response

I've refactored as per your request. I have also responded on WP:ANI to your request to "Find me one policy or guideline" - you may wish to read this. Exxolon (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted and replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is User:Tautologist blocked?

Why is User:Tautologist blocked? It makes no sense and is Censorship. See his talk page for more. I will be seeking to have you and the admins you coordinated to have this vandlalism/censorship perfected banned from Wikipedia permanently. RohdeScholar (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. Be seeing you. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Much better. I sincerely hope you find a way to have a successful off-Wikipedia life, because I don't take any particular pleasure in blocking you. Most everyone else who came here solely to POV-push during the election cycle has either left or moved on to productive editing; too bad the same cannot be said of you, Eric Diesel/Tautologist/WitchieAnna/RhodeScholar. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank You for your vote of moral support on my RfA. Don't worry, I won't be leaving wikipedia if it fails. I dont mind the criticism, and I will take all points under advisement. Blessings, Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Mine succeeded in large part because I set a rather high content creation bar for myself: earn a WP:CROWN before even considering adminship. In the process, I seem to have "checked" all the "boxes" that people wanted to see checked, as well have gotten a good feel for what an admin really is and does along the way. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

J.D. GA review

I have tried to implement your suggestions for the Juris Doctor article, and I believe the article is ready for another review process, if you are still available. Zoticogrillo (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm pretty pegged, but there's a good chance I can get to it this weekend. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for fixing what was wrong.

To show my thanks I'm going to spend some time working on an unrelated article. --Georgelives (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

St. Pancake

I'm sorry, but I believe that you're wrong on this matter. The statement in your edit summary "redirects do not have to follow NPOV policy" is quite false. You may not be aware that similar redirect St. Pancake was tagged as a G10 by experienced user Cerejota and deleted by admin Jac16888 earlier this month. I am going to seek wider input. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my post here. Mike R (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Steven Kirk

 Done

Hello, I was quite surprised to see the page for Steven Kirk deleted, especially since he has gotten a bit of notoriety lately with his impression of a certain disgraced governor. When I found your statement, "notable things, not a directory of non-notable things that are looking for greater Internet exposure," I can see your point. But I would argue, and humbly suggest, that Mr. Kirk's contributions at large don't rise or fall on a flurry of recent promotion. Besides, cobbling that information together took a bit of time and recreating it from scratch would be laborious. I respect your opinion and indeed do see Wikipedia the way you do. So, if you could please advise on how to have the page restored without any violations, I would appreciate it. It would be no problem to de-emphasize and remove links to the aforementioned politician, if that was the sticking point. Thanks! Snd33083 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

I can userify it for you. If you can find a good, independent reliable source that covers him in these activities, it would be fine to go back into mainspace. A local paper "entertainment" section would be a good start. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can do that for me, that would be great! Thanks. Snd33083 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

OK, page is restored and moved to User:Snd33083/Steven Kirk. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snd33083 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Saint Pancake

I'm sorry, but my deletion has every support in policy. WP:CSD#G10 is quite clear - "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity". Since the only purpose of that page is to insert a disparaging nickname of the subject into Wikipedia - as you admitted yourself [11] - the applicability of G10 is clear. Black Kite 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it must be the only and sole reason it exists in Wikipedia. Since it's a useful redirect from a name well known to Google, your argument is incorrect. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides WP:CSD is very clear: "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I'm not suggesting it be kept outright, I'm stating that it should be reviewed and decided by a full WP:RfD instead of a speedy fiat. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the nickname only exists to disparage Corrie, then it follows that the page only exists to do the same. On that basis we could have redirects of any pejorative nicknames pointing to that person's article - Monkey boy could redirect to GW Bush, for example ... Black Kite 00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you comment on WP:REDIRECT's endorsement of Butcher of Kurdistan in light of your position? Does that name not also serve to disparage its (living) target? Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be argued that it does, but I would point out that this particular name has been widely used in reliable sources (i.e. [12]). Similarly Butcher of Lyon redirects to Klaus Barbie. "Saint Pancake", by comparison, returns no hits at all in the entire archive of Google News. Black Kite 01:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but Google News is an inappropriate metric to use, since WP:RS is only about articles, not about redirects. See, we're beyond the point in this discussion where it's clear that reasonable people differ and the speedy should be reversed and referred to a full RfD. I just went through the usage statistics--looks like about a dozen people a month used either redirect in 2008, so they clearly serve a redirection purpose--people searching using the terms, since no place linked to either page--in addition to the freely acknowledged inclusion of the disparaging nickname. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my argument there would be that a reference to "Saint Pancake" in the Corrie article would be disallowed for lack of WP:RS (whereas both the examples above are discussed in their articles and reliable sources exist) and therefore a redirect should be inappropriate anyway. I've no real objection to a discussion on this, but I do think that, as a G10 deletion, if one takes place it should be at WP:DRV so that it stays deleted for the time being. I won't be back online until tomorrow now (it's 1.15am here). Thanks, Black Kite 01:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The world's not going to end over this, by all means sleep and come back to the conversation refreshed--I will be in an all-day class myself. I'd really rather convince you to take it to RfD than "win" a DRV. Fact is, I've never tried to put the term into the article, (though others have) and I agree it's somewhat more reasonable to exclude it. The difference with a redirect is that no one will find it and be offended (the "think of her friends" argument... as if anyone who is closely associated with Corrie isn't already familiar with the term and more less polite things that have been said about her, but I digress...) and redirects just need an assertion of utility, not reliable sourcing. Regardless, it's pretty well acknowledged by all that the term comes from the right-wing blogosphere, and probably originated at the LittleGreenFootballs site: it's a real term, hence a dozen people a month coming here to find out who Saint Pancake is and becoming enlightened through the presence of the redirect. Frankly, the fact that it has this much use four years after the fact demonstrates, in my mind, a pretty good argument that the redirect is encyclopedic, even if many of the blog hits have long since vanished from Google. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice you've been back to this DRV, but you might have missed my question of 10:30 today. You might drop back when you've a chance to address it. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I do think I substantially answered it before, but I'll get a little bit more specific. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: closing admin supported the view that the correct way to handle CSD deletions is WP:DRV. In your closing statement, you noted "for the record" that those supporting deletion did it wrong. It would seem to me that community consensus is otherwise, that your recreation was wrong and that the second deletion was correct. I know this was in good faith, but perhaps in the future if a fellow admin deletes somethign you feel should not be deleted, you will go to DRV before reverting him/her. I want to note for the record that CSD exists for a reason, and that unilaterally second guessing (instead of using the further steps in the deletion process) a deleting admin is indeed pulling wheelies.--Cerejota (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying it again doesn't make it right. A bunch of people saying it doesn't make it right. A closing admin agreeing with a bunch of people who are wrong doesn't make it right. If you think WP:DELETE or WP:Wheel war should be changed, feel free to take it up on those talk pages. Let me put it this way: If I were to push it, I could ask for Black Kite to be desysop'ed, and there's a non-trivial chance that he would be, per WP:Wheel war. More likely, he'd just be admonished, since the sentiment is that that outcome was "right", WP:NOTCENSORED notwithstanding. You, and most of the other people involved in the process, focused on personal dislike of the redirect, rather than the egregious violations of process. It is simply not possible to assert in good faith that I did anything wrong, but that Black Kite was justified in re-deleting Saint Pancake. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, don't mind if this never-been-blocked admin in good standing doesn't take advice on interpreting WP:Wheel war too seriously when it comes from an editor who was blocked barely more than two weeks ago for edit warring. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OUCH! You might note it was quickly reversed, and it was the first time after many years and many controversies, including the Wikipedia Review saying I was a sock for SlimVirgin. So I am generally well-behaved and in good standing. That said, I am heeding your advice and raising an RfC for making this explicit in CSD: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#RfC:_Reverting_speedy_deletions_-_administrator.27s_guide. I think this is a discussion worth having, and made policy either way, so we do not have to throw barbs at each other ;)--Cerejota (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Cerejota's statement represents correctly what i tried to say in the closing statement. In particular i did not want to comment or imply that either of you was 'wrong'. For more, I refer to above mentioned RfC. But you seem to dismiss my DRV closure as someone "agreeing with a bunch of people who are wrong". Well your fellow editors, certainly didn't expect a lengthy reading of the discussion, so if you cannot take anything out of it for you, I've probably failed. -Tikiwont (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Tikiwont, I'm sorry if that seemed like a slam on your close. I was more responding to Cerejota's failure to leave the issue well enough alone, rather than trying to bring it up for discussion. I don't particularly agree with your close, but nor do I bear you any ill will. I would love to separate the process issues from the visceral, negative emotional reactions people have to documenting the use of Saint Pancake by those who found Corrie's actions unadmirable. I've been speaking up for a minority view, and been roundly shouted down by those who have a vested emotional interest in the other outcome, and generally ignored by those who might have spoken up for minority rights or the fundamental right to discuss a controversial deleiton before it is permanently effected--the worse I can say about your close is that it tends to follow the latter course. DGG's about the only one who seemed to "get" what I was trying to say: that any contested speedy should be discussed on its merits, not simply deleted and then actions justified ex post facto. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while that might be true for others, it is not for me. I actually get what you where saying, and see it as a valid argument - my response was that DRV was an appropriate forum for such discussion on its merits, and that furthermore, in that discussion, the CSD G10 criteria for "attack" was met.

for example, I went to LGF (a great source of anti-creationist news) and searched both "St. Pancake" and "Saint Pancake", and all I got was a post form 2005 claiming the term was possibly invented in LGF, and a couple of "hat tips" to a "St. Pancake". If even in alleged source of the term it is not used in their articles, then this is clearly not a notable attack with encyclopedic value. It is blog rumor and forwarded jokes, the very definition of an attack.

And less than one person every two days looking for it (and how we know these are uniques and not spiders or forkers?) certainly fails the useful test.

In other words, while you might disagree with the removal of the term, I think you are mistaken in thinking that the response is a vested emotional response. As I said, Spic is much worse offense-wise to me than the dark humor (yes I laff at it) of "St. Pancake". Yet you don't see me trying to get "Spic" deleted. If I acted only on vested emotions, why would I not do that? You see? I think you are right raising the argument, and in arguing for your position, but you are wrong in characterizing the opposing positions both as homogenous, and as emotional versus a rational response. I think it is more of a rational vs rational response, with a few exceptions.--Cerejota (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no offense taken. I don't expect you to agree with the outcome but see little scope for a different one. Moreover, i agree that there is a difference between discussing before hand and ex post, just not that only the former addresses merits and the latter would amount to mere justification. Best regards, Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Help Me

{{adminhelp}}

Hello. I'd like to request the assistance of an administrator to assist me in resolving an issue. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

If you want to use {{adminhelp}} for this, please state your issue and request when placing the tag. So if you need assistance, please explain your request here, then use adminhelp again. Regards SoWhy 09:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am having a dispute with another editor. This editor keeps deleting/reverting all of my legitimate edits ... for what I see as no reason ... (with which I assume they disagree). I have attempted to communicate with this editor, to no avail. Please help with some administrative intervention. Or should I just keep un-reverting all of their reverts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

No, you shouldn't, that would constitute edit-warring. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution where you find many ways to resolve such disputes. Unless one of you starts disrupting the Wikipedia with those edits, administrative intervention is not needed because admins are not mediators but ordinary users in such cases (until the need for tool use arises). Regards SoWhy 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK ... just so I understand ... (1) that editor's revert of my edit remains in place, otherwise I am edit-warring ... is that correct? ... and (2) this, despite the fact that I have tried to resolve the dispute with him, to no avail, and with him ignoring my attempts? ... So, do I have this all straight? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Yep. Two wrongs don't make a right, and except in rare cases (such as defamatory material about living people), back-and-forth reverting is more disruptive than simply allowing one (presumably incorrect) piece stand while you seek dispute resolution. WP:3RR is an excellent page to read on that, and WP:3O is a good first dispute resolution process if no other editors are looking at the articles where the disputes are. If that doesn't help, feel free to contact me directly on my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please help me? Please? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

OK, so back up and let's take this from the top.

1. What article are you editing?
2. What change are you trying to make?
3. Who is reverting you and what is the reason they give?

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and for your willingness to help out. Before I answer your questions, let me add some preface and some context. This article in question has very little "traffic" ... the edit in question (in my mind) has absolutely no controverted statements whatsoever ... and I have attempted to reach out to the editor to resolve this, but to no avail. The article is Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. If you review the history of edits to that article, I am referring to the 5 or 6 or so that have occurred on/after February 1st. Furthermore, please see the following ... in which I attempted to resolve this with the editor at his/her Talk Page: User talk:Emerson7#jerry lewis. Thank you. I would appreciate your help. Honestly, I don't see what the controversy or the issue is. And, in good faith, I attempted to resolve this dispute --- only to be ignored and reverted. Please offer your insights. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not seeing the either the article or user name here. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was in mid-edit, and adding that material, when you sent the above post. Also, this very moment, I see that another editor altogether has now edited the article in question. Please refer to my edits, not the latest/newest. Mine were sourced and gave exact / specific wording. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I just redid your edit, better. Some points:

• Calling other people anal isn't helpful. See WP:CIVILITY--being polite can often mean the difference between being listened to by admins or being ignored. It should be about the merits of your problem, but people don't like to help jerks--don't be one, even when others are, and you'll be more successful.
• The award for 2008 is awarded in 2009, so your edit was incorrect on that score.
• I've formatted the references better.

Hope that helps. I'll keep an eye on the article. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem to me to apply to this case, so I support your addition of the sourced material, even if the award ceremony hasn't been held yet. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your assistance. One last note --- my original award "year" was indeed correct. On this particular Academy Award page, all of the years are "off" by one. In other words, AMPAS convention for this particular award (I guess) is to use the year of presentation, not the previous year (for body of work). If you want to keep your "year" for Jerry Lewis, then all of the other years need to be edited, as they will all be "one off". Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

So, do you have sourcing that establishes that? I'm certainly no expert, but that means either there was no award for 2008, we don't have it documented, or everything else in the entire article is off by one. Which? Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your question or what it is that you are asking a source for. So, I will tell you what I know. Apparently, there was no award for 2008 ... and, as you can see from glancing through the article, there were indeed many years in which no award was given. In fact, the award is more often not given than it is given. In all of the other Academy Awards, the year of presentation is always one year later than the year of the award. Thus, the Best Actor Oscar for 2008 will be handed out in 2009. That is, the winner in 2009 is being honored for his film work from 2008. The awards ceremony that is held in 2009 celebrates the film-work for 2008. However, with this particular award, that is not the case. In this instance, Jerry Lewis is not being honored for the work he did in 2008. Rather, he is being honored for his lifetime of work. So, from what I can see in this article (as I compare it with the Academy Awards database), this article lists the year of the award as the year in which it is actually presented. Hence, for Jerry Lewis, 2009. As I said, I did not quite understand your question ... so this (above) is my attempt to answer it, as best I could, by providing whatever information I know on this topic. Now, let me ask you a question ... what makes you think / state / claim that Jerry Lewis' award should be listed as 2008 and not 2009? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Just the general pattern of awards for X year being awarded in X+1. If this one's different, then go ahead and change it back. Just be prepared to document why this honorary award is different than others. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will change the year back to 2009 for Jerry Lewis. That follows the convention/format of all other entries on the page. Thanks for your help. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Question about Jess H. Dickinson

The article you deleted was tagged as copyvio by a bot and CSD'ed almost immediately. Do you know what the policy is on usage of material created by US state governments (specifically Missouri in this case) vs works by the federal government (which are public domain). Just curious, thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I honestly don't know. Regardless, if you'd like to paraphrase (and credit) the .ms.us page and upload it again, it shouldn't raise any flags. That sound reasonable? Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well no, if it's not clear that it would be a copyvio to begin with. I honestly cannot find anything on WP or elsewhere about this. You would think someone would have run into this at some point in the past, no? §FreeRangeFrog 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything on first glance, either. I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and seeing what they say. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. By the way, I tagged Muscatel Middle School for speedy because it was nonsense about the band, not the school. §FreeRangeFrog 01:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I went ahead and redirected it. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

deletion of millhouse

Hi disapoointed you deleted my millhouse page. They are a good band rather well liked in this locale if only for the way they change light pop tunes into good rock fare. Their significance may not extend much beyond cheshire but it is nevertheless notable in these parts. Was there anything missing or can be changed that might make the page re listable?

many thanks

Danny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millhousegibson (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Danny, the primary issue is notability--the article didn't seem to assert that Millhouse were anything special. There is a minimum threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. In the case of musical acts, the community's expectation of minimum notability is recorded as WP:BAND. Feel free to examine that closely, and if you decide to recreate the article, be very clear how Millhouse meets one or more of those criteria. Deletion of articles that don't even make a case that their subjects meet such notability guidelines isn't punitive, just a shortcut. If you can make a better article about Millhouse, or any other musical act, feel free to do so. Per my quote above, though, Wikipedia is to describe acts that have already achieved recognition, not a place to catalogue acts seeking recognition--if Millhouse falls into the latter category, it might be best to avoid recreating their article until they get some publicity in independent sources. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Weddings in stockholm

Thanks for the CSD. RC patrol is made more satisfying when things happen. As I said, you are a good admin. ;)--Cerejota (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cervicography

Created again. I ran into it on WP:NEW but I guess it had not been tagged by Coren or something, and then I saw you nuked it previously. So I re-tagged it. Might want to block the user for a little while. I keep giving you headaches, sorry! :) §FreeRangeFrog 08:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The current version doesn't look like an explicit copyvio--it appears a good faith effort has been made to paraphrase that source. Jclemens (talk)

Blank

Which page did I do that to? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A few of them... I don't remember the exact names, but there were more than two. Some were "/comments" subpages. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I found all two of them and fixed that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I'm wasting your time. I was trying to move to comments back into the talk page as I know of few Wikipedians who actively search for the comment pages. On the talk pages, at least people will see them and possibly fix what might be suggested. I'm not just blanking pages for the sake of deletion. I am trying to make the pages better, not waste ones time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving comments is fine, but I'm not sure how useful it is, since it looked like some of those pages were transcluded onto the parent pages--when you marked one for speedy, both the comment page and its parent page showed up for deletion. The purpose of {{db-empty}} is limited to the sole author's decision to wipe out a self-created page. Other people don't get to use it, nor does the creator of a page if other people have made significant contributions. What I'd do in that case is either Prod them, or bundle them up in one large MfD. Either way, it gives people time to comment on you requesting deletion of someone else's work. I think the goal is fundamentally good, but the speedy process is a set of specific shortcuts only available in limited, defined, community-agreed circumstances. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Banjo-Kazooie DS

I don't mean to question your judgment, but BKDS is not a rumor at all or crystal ball, it's a nonexistent hoax, that even the article says doesn't exist. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I think I've seen it before. If it gets De-prodded, we can take it to AfD, and then delete it on sight in the future as G4. There's less harm in telling lies about future video games than about real people, but if it gets too stupid, you can take it straight to AfD without waiting for Prod, and I'll endorse deletion. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that's an okay proposal. Speaking of prods, Metroid Subzero is now a dated prod. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, it's got a day left. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Jclemens. You might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Jin Moon. Redddogg (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bruce Roselle

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bruce Roselle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Roselle. Thank you. andy (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The American Friends of Versailles

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The American Friends of Versailles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable group, no Google news hits

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jess H. Dickinson

Hello. As you deleted the article, I wanted to follow-up with you, explaining why I'm going to recreate an altered version. After getting to my Talkpage, please continue on to Darth Mike's to read an explanation of what happened and why. Thanks. Rosiestep (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I agree that creating a non-copyvio version of this article is absolutely an appropriate thing to do. Did you ever get a straight answer from anyone on whether U.S. State-created info was automagically in the public domain? Jclemens (talk)

Stranger Originated Life Insurance

Hi -- I haven't looked at that article lately, but this is a real topic. Maybe someone spamified it with copyrighted material since I worked on it, but I can't tell now. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It'd been a copyvio for a while, but yes, your original stub was perfectly fine, and has been restored--sorry for not noticing that before. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll throw it on my watchlist in case this recurs. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aeorads

An article that you have been involved in editing, Aeorads, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeorads. Thank you. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 03:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hai Ha Confectionery

Hi, I don't suppose you could un-delete Hai Ha Confectionery; I am not with the company, I write government and corporate articles and do a lot of geographic categorization for Southeast Asia and Africa. If it is impossible to un-delete the article, I will simply put Hai Ha on a deletion discussion page and re-write it. Thanks. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can userify it for you if you'd like, but there's no particular assertion of notability. The article fails to answer the question: Why would anyone outside the local area care about this business? Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could "userify" it; having experience in defending corporate articles, corporate notability, in line with WP:CORP, has to do with listing at a major stock exchange, which can provide most of a company's notability; and listing at established financial research sites like Hoover's; Hoover's is mentioned by name in corporation notability guidelines, but Google and Bloomberg cater more to international corporate research. The corporate notability guidelines say "inclusion on a stock exchange does not in and of itself establish notability"; this guideline is partly designed to protect against (CSD candidate) articles written about companies on the very many un-official stock exchanges that exist around the world. ...By my experience (see Sara Vietnam and Phnom Penh Commercial Bank deletion discussions) his company passes notability easily....article was deleted less than 5 minutes after creation. Please, if you have any questions please continue this discussion here. Thanks again. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's restored to User:Mr_Accountable/Hai_Ha_Confectionery. Feel free to work on it there. As you can see, the amount of attention paid to new articles is highly variable, depending on how many editors happen to be watching, so I'd recommend making it notable beyond a reasonable doubt before moving it back to mainspace. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and: Um, that's the thing, it is notable beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment depends on the level of corporate Wikipedia experience of the editor or adminsitrator, I suppose. I will put it up tomorrow during the day here and see how it goes. Cheers. PS Hanoimilk and Hoa Cam Concrete, also created just now, are also similarly "notable beyond a reasonable doubt", I wonder if they are safe? --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No... If it doesn't have reliable sources, nor explain its own importance, it's not obviously notable. If I ask "If everything in this article were sourced and true, would anyone not directly involved care?" Simply noting that a company is listed on a stock exchange doesn't cut it. As far as the other two, I really couldn't tell you--I don't tag many things, generally I just evaluate what someone else has tagged. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

When a company article like the ones here get to a deletion discussion, there is normally some confusion about WP:CORP and WP:N, because of high levels of spammy articles, non-wikified articles copied wholesale by pr departments, and of course articles about companies which aren't notable to begin with. Listing on a stock exchange can go very far towards notability, but it actually depends on the stock exchange itself. Kuwait Stock Exchange has a mix of many very notable companies and many very non-notable companies but Vietnam's two stock exchanges are more or less full of notable companies, due again to the nature of the stock exchange itself. The point being made about "Why would someone outside the local area care" goes toward a Wikireader who is interested in corporations in the first place, just consider the 250 companies on London's FTSE 250, each of course with an article, most all which would mean nothing to a casual reader in the US or Canada. This goes to the difference between a casual reader and a more corporately knowldegeable reader who might be able to understand the accountability of the financial services industry in regards to company research at company sites and at Google finance, Alacrastore, Hoover's, Bloomberg, etc. For a "corporate type", a Google listing can mean as much as an ICAO listing in aviation or a molecule listing at IUPAC. .... Hope this is information is useful and interesting. Cheers. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

David Bredehoft

I saw you declined speedy, but I am surprised - this thing looks like a c.v. you would submit with a job application. – ukexpat (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with such an interpretation is that if we take out the CV stuff, it doesn't obviously pass WP:ACADEMIC, does it? If there's no contact information to hire him, I'm OK with it not being a G11. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Being Stalked

Hi. Remember Baseball2 (IRC Channel)? It appears the flood of users behind that are now taking an active role stalking me. Send me an email for more details please. Knippschild (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just dealing with me directly, I suggest you go ahead and post at WP:AN/I so that multiple folks can help. I'm pretty busy during the day. Hope things work out well, Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and apparently the same IP address that created that page defaced my page after I deleted it, too. I blocked it for a couple of days--we'll see if they get bored and go away. Jclemens (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Luminet

Wow that was a very speedy deletion! I had just read the notice and begun responding when the Luminet page was deleted. I guess Wikipedia is not the place for information on a band which is attempting to create new musical forms? What additional information would I have required (if I had had time to add it) to avoid deletion? Thanks you! Rgonzale1 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For musicians/acts/bands, see WP:MUSICBIO, and make sure your article clearly articulates how it meets one or more of those criteria for inclusion. Nothing personal, Wikipedia has to draw the line somewhere. If any coverage of the band exists, even in local free weeklies, be sure to reference that. If that act doesn't yet meet those criteria, feel free to come back and create an article once it does. Wikipedia is for cataloging things (including bands) who are already notable, not for "getting the word out" about not-yet-notable things. Best wishes, Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Jclemens. My first article and clearly I'm a noob! Thanks for your work. Rgonzale1 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ג'ין לרמן

re [13], did you know that the translate tag includes a link to a google machine translation?, which is coherent enough to know it fits a7--Jac16888^Talk 17:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. No, I didn't, thanks. Unfortunately, that link doesn't work for me for this page. Looks like it's only got a few hours before it's Prod eligible anyways, but I'll keep that in mind for future reference. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

List of R Rated Movies

Why did you decline speedy? WP:Films DOES NOT accept films by ratings they don't comply with guidlines andaccording to our MOS guidelines. They are not even appropriate within articles. Please delete it thankyou. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's already been deleted once, can you reference the discussion for me so that I can G4 delete it? Failing that, I don't see what speedy criteria apply. I agree it's not a good list, and if you AfD it I'll !vote to delete it, but I simply don't see a speedy criteria that obviously applies. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see [14]

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Deleted and blocked him. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Vito "Tha Champ"

Sir, I just joined tonight (Feb. 11, 2009)...I am not sure why the Vito "Tha Champ" page was deleted. To the best of my ability I made a neutral statement on this guy's career, and as far as copyright infringement, I credited the creators of the pictures (if that's what was in question) wholeheartedly. Granted, a profile of an upcoming rapper may not be scholarly, but his career has just started as far I know (therefore most of the citations I could use were from his handlers' web sites). He's an artist that I respect, and I gained permission from him to build a Wikipedia page for him. I thoroughly enjoy Wikipedia and being this is my first night as a user, I spent THREE hours creating that page. Any feedback would be great...Thanks for hearing me out.

Kor3y Hu5H, CEO of Hu5H Mon3y M3dia 04:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kor3yHu5H (talk • contribs)

First off, thanks for being polite about it. I realize that investing that amount of time, only to have the article deleted, is frustrating. Beyond that, there are two separate issues with the article as it was before it was deleted. The first problem is the copyright issue, which is fairly simple to fix. See WP:IOWN for the steps. Basically, Wikipedia can't trust a bare assertion that an anonymous account owns content, so needs a more specific assurance that yes, you have the right to grant Wikipedia the right to use and republish your info.

The second issue is notability. WP:MUSICBIO covers rappers (as well as other sorts of performing artists). If I recall correctly, the article was marginal on this point--had it not been for the copyright issue, I probably wouldn't have deleted it solely based on the issues here. When you recreate the article, be sure to clearly indicate, ideally in the first paragraph (the "lead"), how Vito meets at least one of those criteria. Also, if he's received any press coverage (MySpace, his own website, and press releases don't count), be sure to include that. Notability via WP:MUSICBIO is the bright line we use to determine who's notable enough to get an article, and who isn't. Wikipedia is for things that have already achieved a measure of recognition, rather than things that are seeking publicity in order to achieve wider recognition. If Vito doesn't yet meet those criteria, feel free to create an article on him once he does. Another bit of advice: feel free to create copies of articles in your own user space (e.g., User:Kor3yHu5H/Vito "the champ") and then make a copy of them into mainspace. That way, if an admin doesn't think the article meets inclusion criteria, you can work on your copy of the article without having to recreate it from scratch.

Hope that helps. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you could give me some help...

Hi, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I have some (two) questions. First, what usergroups does this wiki have? If you could give me a list of those, I would really appreciate it. Second, how would I go about obtaining rollback privilidges? This place seems to have a lot of vandalism going on, and the easiest way to deal with it is with rollback. I want to help, but I'm not fast enough 90% of the time. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope to be of service to this wiki in the future. --VaderRacer 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, here goes. First, user groups. Most associations of users are based around "Wikiprojects"--Click on my userboxes, you'll see a few of them. There are scores of wikiprojects, and sub-teams (task forces) within most of the major ones. They're a great place to hang out with people who share similar interests. Second, rollback. Basic criteria for rollback are to be around for a while, do a fair bit of reverting vandalism, and do it well. Read WP:VAND to see what's vandalism and what's not--many people call mistaken or misguided edits vandalism, when it's actually excluded. Read and understand WP:CSD to understand what is and is not suitable for "speedy deletion". Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Youstinklmao

Please Jclemens do not extend that block, I of all people understands how it feels to be blocked and you think or are in the right. Anger can sometimes cloud ones judgement. If you were blocked for no apparent reason you would be angry. This user was angry enough to personally attack someone. Perhaps extending it would make him/her more angry. I ask as a person of concern. P.S. OMFG- I fricken love you user talk, esp.the goals--there all the stuff i lyk 2Dance-pop (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Go look at the edit that got him blocked, look at his unblock request again, and then let's talk about what his attitude is and how appropriate the original block was. Thanks for the kudos, btw. :-) Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hello. I tried to create a page for control4. It was deleted so i deleted the marketing type stuff from the page leaving just facts about the company and posted it again but now its blocked and i was given a warning. I dont understand why the creation of the control4 page was blocked. It provides models and information to consumers on the products. it is not promoting the sale of them. I tried to make the page have information like this page [[15]] i dont understand what the difference is. I am new here and have read as much as possible but need help. Please tell me what i did wrong and what i can do to fix this and get the control4 listing actvice.. Thank you Blackwiredesigns (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Kevin Blackwiredesigns

Sorry I missed this--it was added to the top, vs the bottom, of the talk page. Are you still needing help? Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Virgil Preda

Hi.

I saw you declined my speedy delete on Virgil Preda. I'm having a hell of a time figuring out just where the line is on notability. I've just started nominating things for speedy deletion, this is not the first one to be declined. I checked the guideline, and I can't figure out which one applies to this article. I see the section for artists under "Creative professionals," but none of the criteria seem to apply.

Can you help me figure out what I'm missing?

Thanks.

—Bdb484 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to explain. A7 is for when all the assertions in the article, even if true and supported by reliable sources, wouldn't add up to enough notability to merit inclusion. The article asserts a number of public showings, which is good and speaks to WP:CREATIVE, but it specifically asserts three written, presumably independent sources. If those check out, that would meet the WP:GNG regardless of the specific artist critera. Speedy deletion is like summary judgement: admins are suppost to look at things in the best possible light, and spare the article unless even the most favorable interpretation points to deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Casting it as "summary judgment" is the perfect way to explain it. To me, anyway.

Thanks again.

—Bdb484 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

films depicting Guyana

I don't understand what is ‎Blatant advertising about film that is made in a small south american country? Please let me know because I worked very long and hard on articles for this website and I'm getting very discouraged. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraokland (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue with that page when I deleted it a week ago is that it was an article promoting a single film. It was since recreated by you and deleted by another admin. A WP:List article is generally a series of links to other articles. You later created Mustard Bath (film), and I declined to speedily delete that article, as it was appropriate for that title. Perhaps I should have moved the original article in lieu of deleting it, but it appears that your article now exists in the proper location. I don't see anything from the deleted article that's missing from the article that currently exists. Once there are several articles about films depicting Guyana, then it will be more appropriate to create a category or list that doesn't serve to just promote one single film. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for NEW LIARS CLUB

An editor has asked for a deletion review of NEW LIARS CLUB. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aecis^Brievenbus 07:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd be better off simply recreating the article with a clearer assertion of notability. However, criteria 6 of WP:MUSICBIO notes that redirects are often more appropriate. Worse, Gameface doesn't even assert notability in its own article, and I've so tagged it. Reliable sourcing is the real key to Wikipedia inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive6

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive6. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tennis expert (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive5

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive5. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tennis expert (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive4

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive4. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tennis expert (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive3

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive3. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tennis expert (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive2

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive2. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tennis expert (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive1

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive1. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tennis expert (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the amply abundant notice. I won't be commenting much at the DRV, just watching what the community has to say. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Emily Wicke

Hi - just to let you know I have opened an Afd on this page, in case you want to contribute.

pablo_hablo. 10:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I weighed in. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kai Wong

Just let you know about undeletion of page Kai Wong. Due to the comprehensive and encyclopedic nature of wikipedia, I have been confused about the "notability" of asian american and other minority artists.

Notability is the same for everyone. WP:MUSICBIO specifies what needs to be asserted in the article for it to avoid speedy deletion, and WP:V describes how that must be documented (WP:RS being the preferred route) in order to be kept in an WP:AfD discussion. About the only difference with Asian performers is that more research might be needed to see if a particular source is independent, but the criteria are the same. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

N.A.S.A.

You deleted a page on N.A.S.A., the music group, that had been marked holdon. Furthermore, no deletion log details or talk page notes been entered indicating why you believe the article did not meet your standard of significance. I consider this an abuse of the wikipedia collaborative ideal.

Although you have not heard of the band, it is a notable project of two prominent producers and over 30 headlining acts, like Kanye West, David Byrne, and others. Their album is released tomorrow, and has been covered by Rolling Stone and other publications (See The Spirit of Apollo (album)). Please restore the page, and enter a talk message as to why you consider it ripe for deletion. It is ridiculous to recreate the page again tomorrow, or next week when the group's album hits the Billboard charts. The collaboration is notable and significant now. Ipeterson 01:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipeterson (talk • contribs)

Indeed I did. Next time, the fact that it's been "covered by Rolling stone and other publications" should feature prominently in the article. I've gone back and read the article, and I still don't see a assertion of notability (per WP:MUSICBIO in it. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please restore the article so that such edits could be made? The article was in the process of being updated. Furthermore, the article linked to their album, which mentioned prominently its coverage by major publications. Such edits can not always be done within an hour--that seemed to be the entire purpose of the holdon tag. Your heavy-handed policing of articles under ongoing development discourages good-intentioned, if not the most prompt, participation by the masses. What kind of crowd-sourcing are you trying to incubate here? ipeterson 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been restored to User:Ipeterson\N.A.S.A. (musical group) That's in your userspace. Feel free to move it back to its original location once the sources have been added--that will keep any other administrator from deleting it before you're finished. There are so many non-notable bands and musician added to Wikipedia daily, it's simply not possible to follow every link to check for notability assertions there, so sometimes we miss things like that. I'm sorry you had to find this out the hard way! Best wishes for you and the article, Jclemens (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for copy of deleted article: Paul Maliakkal

Hello Jclemens,

An article that I started was recently deleted. The reason for the deletion was cited as "A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I would like to restore a copy of the article to my user talk so that I can improve the article and emphasize the importance and significance of the subject so that the article complies with wikipedia's standards.

The article is entitled [Paul Maliakkal]. If you are unable to restore the article to my [user talk page], please let me know how I can recover the contents of the article so that I can modify it to wikipedia's standards.

Thanks, Schoolbusdriver85 --Schoolbusdriver85 (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I restored it to User:Schoolbusdriver85/Paul Maliakkal, but I really don't see how it can ever meet Wikipedia standards. He sounds like a well-rounded guy that I would have liked to have known, but he doesn't appear to have done anything to meet WP:BIO's notability guidelines, and the entire article does seem to run afoul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the notability guidelines I agree with you that this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore does not belong on Wikipedia. Can you recommend another wiki that does not have such notability guidelines but like wikipedia does not require logins in order for individuals to contribute and is likely to be sustained like wikipedia? Thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean and useful. --Schoolbusdriver85 (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really don't know anything beyond what's listed at List of wikis. Hope you're able to find a suitable and appropriate place for this article there. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article Anthony Joseph Rao

Trying to figure out why this article was deleted. Thought guidelines were followed and sources verified. New at this though. Can someone please help? User:Watching Tower (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for asking nicely. You did have some sources included, which is a good start and made me look carefully at the article. However, nothing in the article asserted that Mr. Rao has accomplished enough to meet the notability standards of WP:CREATIVE. There's enough there to verify that he's a working photographer, but no assertion that his pictures or exhibits have meet with a notable level of commercial or critical success. Please review the guidelines at WP:CREATIVE, and let me know if you have additional assertions of notability that can be legitimately included in that article. If so, I'll be happy to restore the deleted version so that you can continue work on it. If not, then it may be appropriate to wait until Mr. Rao is recognized by another independent, reliable source or two before recreating the article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I was able to find that he belongs to the Associated Press Photo Managers, if this helps. Also, in August some of his work is supposed to be recognized by the Florida Magazine Association, but I couldn't get into their website fma.org without being a member. I am not sure if and when that will be available. Thank you for all your help. User:Watching Tower (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I can restore the deleted article to your userspace, and you can go ahead and add sources as you find them. Feel free to drop me (or any other experienced editor, really) a note as you find sources, and we'll give you a pre-evaluation of the article's notability. Also, once you have a copy in userspace, just make a copy into mainspace--that way, if someone disagrees with us and deletes it, you'd still have a copy to work with. That sound reasonable? Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely reasonable. I'll post on this thread once I have more sources and see if you concur on them. Thank you. I new to wikipedia so I appreciate the help as I learn how this all works. Also, how do I access my userspace? User:Watching Tower (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Userbox for GA reviews

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

This user has reviewed 6 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)