User talk:Jclemens/Archive 5

Possession spillage

I'd like to debate the deletion of the possession spillage article. It was relevant, referenced and improved the understanding of a linked article. Please restore it. Bermudanights (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Restored. I've tagged it for refimprove, as the PRODding editor had expressed concerns about sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin St. Vincent

Thank you for your kind message regarding the Speedy Deletion of my article Justin St. Vincent

Perhaps it is possible to contest this deletion as I am the author and copyright owner of the brief biography:

07:52, 30 December 2009 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "Justin St. Vincent" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.trademe.co.nz/Members/Profile.aspx?member=3240400)

Am looking forward to reading your reply when available. Thanks for all in advance.

Blessings and Best Regards,

Justin St. Vincent Director & Founder Xtreme Music

E-mail: editor@xtrememusic.org Website: www.xtrememusic.org

Justin, Thanks for your polite post. I've moved it to my general talk page.

So, the copyright violation is only the first hurdle to putting a biography about yourself on Wikipedia. I suggest you review Wikipedia's policy on donating copyrighted material first.

Next, there are the issues of notability and conflict of interest. These are going to be a challenge to overcome, in that most people who are actually notable don't have time to write their own articles. On the other hand, lots and lots of people wanting to break into music notability repeatedly try to establish notability.

So, you can follow WP:DCM or rewrite your article without using or closely paraphrasing that other page, but there's going to be other issues that immediately arise once the copyright issue has been resolved. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rationality

Hi Jclemens! How goes it? Hey, I noticed you opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Independence. I certainly agree with your nomination, but I note that you said that the article was "deprodded without rationale". Do you think I should leave more descriptive summaries (here was mine on Young Independence) or is simply vouching for AfD rather than PROD rationale enough? Or maybe in such cases I should open the AfD myself. Eager to hear from you, and happy new year! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentally, if I don't know why you deprodded something, I have to guess. If you list a rationale, I can evaluate your decision in light of that rationale when I'm going through PRODs looking for things to delete. Ultimately, if I see a prod that's been removed and can neither see nor figure out any reason why it wasn't just deleted, I will often nominate it myself. Leaving a deprodding rationale gives me some insight into your process and thinking, and I try to myself leave a reasonable rationale when I deprod something. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot for taking the time in this. I really appreciate your feedback and will certainly heed it! Thanks again, and best regards! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Gallaecia

Hi Jclemens thanks for let me know it, but this is my five cents: I don't really want to participate in this dicussion and I really don't mind if this article is deleted like every contribution I made in the past for the wiki. Jfreyre (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

Technology in Stargate

I'll take a look and see what I can do. I'd much rather have a good article then none at all - I love that show!--otherlleft 20:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't actually done any of this yet - wading through books online is a bit more time-intensive than traditional web pages or real books.--otherlleft 16:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, I don't have my resource of choice (ProQuest) during school breaks, either. :-S Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Deletion

Could you tell me why you deleted Nido student living ? I gave sources and notability reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysophia (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just curious of why you deleted my contribution of Kevin Andrews (Dancer/Choreographer). Me and other studios around the country have used him and he is the creator of Hip Hop Instruction which is revolutionizing how studios teach hip hop dancing. I cited good sources from what I could find and I just wanted to know why it was deleted...thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eprart (talk • contribs) 02:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So has this Mr. Andrews ever been profiled by an industry magazine? It wasn't clear to the person who nominated it for deletion, or to me as I deleted it, that any of the references met WP:RS. Did you read the criteria notability under WP:CREATIVE? Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mazes and Minotaurs

Hello, you deleted Mazes and Minotaurs as an expired prod. I think there are enough reviews out there that it may well meet WP:N and should probably have a discussion at AfD at least. Could you please restore it? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Feel free to add reviews. I thought it sounded sort of familiar, but I was wondering if I was conflating it with Tunnels & Trolls. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi,

I moved ISCT:ISCSI-Test-Tool to ISCSI Test Tool as it looked like that was the actual name of the product. By then you had proposed it for deletion. Do I have to move it back? -- Raziman T V (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to worry--the redirect will work with it OK. If you want to keep the article, your efforts are much better spent documenting independent coverage in reliable sources. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Homewood Mountain Resort

I can understand your removal of the PROD tag, but I'm not sure why you've removed all of the maintenance templates from this article. I'm still not sure it's notable, but given your edit summary I can justify your removal of the notability tag. However, it clearly needs improvements in its references to establish this notability. I've re-added the primary sources tag. Regards, PDCook (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted one-too-many lines when deprodding. I've restored all the tags as they were before. Sorry about that. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Regards, PDCook (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Harrison (American football, born 1986)

Hi, could you userfy Brandon Harrison (American football, born 1986) into my userspace? Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Article is now at User:Eagles247/Brandon Harrison (American football, born 1986). Happy editing! Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Kingston Hospital Radio

Pl;ease can you explain why you deleted this from my sandbox. it had been moved back there after it was suggested i retried to create it. i was about to start work on it again today, and it now does not exist. please can you re add this to my sandbox so i can get it up to wikipedia standards.Enfield paul

The material appeared to be in violation of copyright, and will not be restored. Please feel free to start a new article that is original and does not use web content unless it is clearly labeled as free to use according to wikipedia licenses. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So to confirm, instead of leaving it in my sandbox where I was going to edit it and remove the offending small portion of the overall article, and then republish which had been agreed with other wikipedia editors, you have arbitarily destroyed around 8 hours time and effort of a first time wikipedia user. wikipedia may be simple for you to use and understand, btu believe me that is not the case for most people. I am askign for soem help here. if you genuinely think that every other article on wikipedia has nothing that is based on content that exists elesewhere then I would be surprised. if you had contacted me abotu this first then i would have informed you that the site you reference is currently being persued to be taken down, and the owner refuses. secondly i am happy to publish the article with none of the station history in it if that is what it takes. just deleting things, and from a supposedly trial area like the sandbox does not make wikipeida welcoming to a new user. Enfield paul 15:52 3rd Jan —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

Let me put it simply: Copyright violation bad. Copyright violation go poof when anyone notice. Do not upload copyright violation to wikipedia, not even in userspace. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So to confirm, you aren't going to put back into my sandbox the 90% of the article that is fine, even though another wikipedia editor had done so? Thanks a lot for the encouragement to a new wikipedia user. Problems —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfield paul (talk • contribs) 12:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but I'll email it to you if you want, so you can fix the copyvio offline and THEN reupload it to Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks - enfield_paul@hotmail.com Enfield paul 16:58 —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

John van Bruggen

Hello Jclemens. This article previously survived an AfD, so is not eligible for deletion via WP:PROD. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored, thanks for noticing that. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A little fast?

I'd ask that you undo your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Bloom - after slightly more than two hours, I hadn't even begun to figure out how relevent the individual was. While a large number of really questionable "include all negative bio" individuals had shown up to pollute the discussion instantly, I'm not clear how stealing 3mm makes someone relevent - I especially like how you closed it just as someone was hoping that I'd show up to comment. But, whatever - I don't really care enough. Hipocrite (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the outcome will substantially change if I reopened it? If you think that in good faith that those participants don't represent what an eventual consensus would have been, I'll reopen it. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I know I prodded it because I don't feel that prod requires I do research. I do know that I wouldn't have nominated it for AFD unless I felt that it was deletable given the propenderance of the evidence. I know absolutly zero about the topic, except that 8.6 million dollars seems like nearly nothing given the size of the reconstruction. I have no idea why someone who didn't want it deleted nominated it for AFD - I have no idea where the libel-brigade showed up from to support the deletion. I do know that any further possible nomination will be polluted by your "snow" close. Perhaps if you left a note on the AFD stating that the close is without any prejudice to a nominator who actually wants to delete the article renominating it, I can figure out how many Philip Bloom's there are in the world and then evaluate this guy's notability. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was on BLP/N, so I expect people on all sides of the spectrum to appear. You're absolutely right that PROD requires no research, either to nom or to decline. I also looked at WP:N/CA to consider the coverage, and I see no reason why you couldn't move it from a BLP title to an event-focused title and edit it to remove any irrelevant biographical info that remains. Finally... I dunno. I can un-SNOW close something and those not having seen the AfD will be essentially unaware (unless they seek out the history) that it's been previously closed. Your call. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what you do, but I would like you to note in the AFD that your close is without prejudice to a good faith nominator who actually believes the article should be deleted renominating the article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly do that. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jen Bekman Gallery

You recently deleted Jen Bekman Gallery. There appears to be a number of articles in the New York Times covering Bekman and her gallery. Would you mind restoring the page? --Hegvald (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Please have a go at cleaning it up--that looks like a seriously neglected article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Hegvald (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Jclemens/Archive 5! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 00:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tradable Smoking Pollution Permits

Looks like you recently deleted Tradable smoking pollution permits. The summary line lists the concern as: "article based on a joke." The original article proposing this idea was from economists Robert Haveman and John Mullahy, and certainly wasn't a joke. I personally corresponded with the authors about their research on this, and they were quite serious about the concept as a policy proposal. Would you mind restoring the article? Gangstories 06:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored, but I've tagged it for notability, too. You really need at least one more independent reliable source to demonstrate that it's a notable concept. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll see if I can track down another source. (User:Gangstories 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Amir Vahedi

Death has been confirmed and included in the article - maybe remove the semi-protection now? DegenFarang (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Another admin beat me to it; it's back to normal now. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

I would be fine with that. Thank you very much for the offer. --SuaveArt (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Noob tube

I have nominated this article, for which you declined PROD, for deletion. The AfD is here. I42 (talk)

Thanks for the note. I expect it will probably be deleted, but I thought it deserved a wider hearing. Jclemens (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

James Pitt (actor)

Hi Jclemens, You recently deleted James Pitt (actor) for the following reasons: (Expired PROD, concern was: Insufficient notability for an article; no reliable sources; many aspects of self-promotion)

Can you please restore the article? I've located some reliable media sources and will edit the content to remove aspects of self promotion. Many thanks. --Sheppy75 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've restored it and tagged with the concerns the original PROD nominator expressed. Feel free to remove 'em once you've cleaned up those issues. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Orly Ben-Garti

Hello Jclemens, You've deleted the page Orly Ben-Garti for the reason (G12: Blatant copyright infringement of [1]). Can you please put the page back up as we changed the text on the myspace page and its no longer the same. Thank you in advance. --Princessbg (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please see WP:DCM for ways to handle the issue. While the fact that you can change the content on MySpace does indicate that you have control over the content, it doesn't give Wikipedia permission to use the previous version of the content, which is still copyrighted. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked editor editing again

I'd rather not name names here, as there may be a simple explanation. I asked User:Alison about it by email but received no reply. You indef blocked a user in June who appears to be editing again (name and style are very similar to the indef banned editor). If you give me a way of contacting you (my email is enabled), I can be specific and you can tell me if this is copacetic, in which case I have no problem. Bielle (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the "name and style" are the same, then they're probably doing something that merits being blocked again. If a user has been indefinitely blocked, but NOT banned, they're free to come back for a clean start. That doesn't sound like what's happening here. I prefer to deal with on-wiki stuff on-wiki, so feel free to name names. I'll investigate. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

By style I meant language use and approach rather than activities. I am aware of nothing that is current and problematical under the new name. I am puzzled though. I didn't realize that an indef blocked editor can just choose to start editing under a new name. What's "block evasion" then or am I imagining things? Bielle (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

One philosophical difference I have with current practice is that some admins seem to expect that any activity after an indef block is block evasion. If an editor quits the disruption, comes back as a new account, and participates in a mature and constructive manner such that no one can associate the former misbehavior with the current activity... who cares? Really. People do stupid things with anonymity on the Internet; moving past them seems to me to be much more positive than witch hunts. WP:CLEANSTART should actually allow for such. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The page to which you linked does say, however, that Clean Start "is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account." You did ask to be notified if anyone was about to undo the block. The block is still in place but the blocked user is editing. As far as I can tell, the new account has not repeated the blocking offense of the old account. Bielle (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'd like to have the username to request a CU, please. If it's who I think it is, his actions were unrepentant and an egregious BLP violation. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Omit the initial. Bielle (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Milan Ševo

I put all the references in the article, all the sources are there, and these facts are found in several Swedish newspapers, which i also put in the article.//User talk:Ajdebre

There was nothing referenced in the article that was deleted. It was a BLP violation. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Misty

I would encourage you to give a more specific block message at User talk:Misty Willows. Unless you see something I don't, this block had nothing to do with "repeated vandalism" in any normal sense. Dragons flight (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So there's a warning for the picture, a notice of an ANI thread (with link), my block message, and a discussion from Alison about the user page being oversighted. If there were less prior context, I would have left a more detailed message to begin with. At this point, I really don't see the value of adding additional verbiage. The block template was the general indef template, courtesy of Twinkle. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If the generic block template were at least on target, I'd agree with you, but consider what is says. "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges", where the second link is to WP:VANDALISM. However, the core transgression here seems to be neither repeated nor vandalism (or at least not vandalism as typically understood). Even given the ancillary context, I feel there is some risk that this message would create confusion about the purpose of the block, which is why I brought it up. Dragons flight (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Image vandalism is one of the types of vandalism covered at WP:VAND--thus, while the template is pretty generic, the conduct does fall within the bounds of vandalism as described on that link target. I'll be happy to substitute a more appropriate or specific template if you can suggest one. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably moot now since Misty has shown up. Dragons flight (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Underage admins?

Hey, you stated "And, for the record, incidents like this are why I don't believe minors should ever be admins." Who was this in reference to? I don't think Misty was an admin. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This was most recently brought up in Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Juliancolton_2, but it's position I've advanced on multiple occasions. If the first admin to have stumbled upon that picture would have been a minor, we would have a situation where Wikipedia had asked a minor to view alleged child porn. That fails my "headline news" test: would I want my mother hearing about the barest and most negative way such a situation could be construed, and my involvement in it, from the major media outlets? Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sc

Can you find out if we (ever) had an article on sc (sofware) or similar (obviously not right under that name)? It's an old Unix spreadsheet.Pcap ping 10:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any trace of it so I would guess not. Considering the historical aspects of the program, I'm somewhat surprised at the omission. The only thing I managed to find was a brief mention in S-Lang (programming library). --Tothwolf (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GNU Oleo

Do you think it qualifies for a DYK? I got it from 347 B (59 words) "readable prose size" to 2915 B (478 words) during the AfD. Because it's defunct software, I assume I won't get cries of "spam" and such. Pcap ping 14:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it does, at least according to the selection criteria and prosesize.js. The article assessment needs to be changed from stub to start on the talk page before submitting it as a DYK though. You can submit a DYK before the AfD is closed, it just won't be run until its closed. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this and the above question, Tothwolf. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer to your comment....

"ALL the changes I wanted to make" include all the changes in the original major overhaul. And they're all in the current document: every last one. Regarding your defense of your comments: the accusations themselves were uncivil. You're saying these things over and over, and you're the only one. Have you noticed that? Threatening to report someone is uncivil. If I'm breaking a rule, report me, don't threaten. The threats just appear antagonistic and in no way add to a) building an encyclopedia or b) altering my behavior (because I don't agree with you). The "unless you are clueless" comment is also uncivil. Do you realize that as a result of your comments, people are now coming to my defense and obliquely accusing you of the same behavior? This isn't serving anyone. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Threatening to report someone is incivil? How about blocking vandals outright--is that incivil. too? I did report you for sockpuppetry, remember--no threat was involved. You fundamentally seem like a narcissistic personality to me, in that you see everything as you-centric. YOUR changes, YOUR feelings. Try this one on for size: Your lies and misrepresentations, sockpuppetry (glad to see you've quit that for now, though), disruptive editing and other misbehaviors are the only reason so many people needed to get involved in the first place. Had you approached your desired changes with tactics that allowed for the continuance of AGF, this would have been a lot less complicated. The reason you've wasted so many people's time is... YOU decided to waste people's time. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocking is an action, not a threat. If you see behavior that violates policy or guidelines, act by reporting it. Don't threaten. Threats aren't constructive and rarely lead to the change in behavior the threat attempts to coerce. Alleging sockpuppetry after an investigation came back in my favor is uncivil. The personal attacks you are levying now are also uncivil. Please stop all these things. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have persistently been telling you when and how your behavior has been unacceptable. You haven't listened, but nor have you escalated in misbehavior. Again, you are to be commended for knocking off the sock/meatpuppetry once you were called on it, but trying to turn it around and making me the bad guy for forcing you to abandon that tactic is silly. You *are* a sock/meatpuppeteer, as far as I'm concerned, because it is simply not possible to prove that someone isn't. Insufficient evidence is not exoneration, and if I were to suddenly say "Gee, my bad, you weren't really a sockpuppeteer, I just made that allegation to discredit you" that would be evidence of disruptive conduct on my part. See, I remain convinced that I am right, and to the extent that the topic comes up, I will maintain my position. I could say "... until convinced otherwise" but I just don't foresee any new evidence that would exonerate you. As far as I'm concerned, you argued, met resistance, socked, got called on it, and abandoned the practice before the evidence was sufficient to draw a block. Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Alert

Hello, Jclemens. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to notify this, but the MEDCAB thing would have been better to notify me about, seeing as how that actually would require my involvement and consent to move forward. Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brennan Saillezmotte

The person who created this AFD hasn't transcluded it at all. I've tried to fix it but have had no success. What am I doing wrong exactly? -WarthogDemon 20:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the header lines (check my diffs) in the AfD page itself were either clobbered or hadn't gotten created. I think I fixed it. Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposing someone for RfA

It looks to me like User:ukexpat is a very experienced editor (4years, 50K+ edits) that would also like to be an admin. Me proposing him would be a little silly, since I've been around for much less. Perhaps you can take a look? Pcap ping 07:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I could take a look at him, but I've never nominated him before, and several people might oppose the nom simply because I'm the nominator. That's not a "no", however, just a caution. Have you talked to him and found that he's willing to run for RfA? Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

His 3rd userbox says that he wants it. He is not as inclusionist as you (based on my sample of his votes), so I'll co-nom if you want to dispel that impression. Pcap ping 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well, I try to defy labels. I don't imagine many other "inclusionists" have deleted 13,000ish articles. I was actually speaking more of some other disputes I've had with groups of people. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Only two people opposed your RfA, and one of them was me (for what was, in hindsight, not a real concern). Pcap ping 06:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. I intentionally avoided controversial areas until I'd already been given the bit. I have, however, demonstrated that I don't wheel war. :-) Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, just stopping by to say thanks for the confidence you have in me. You are not the first to ask if I would like to be nominated. Yes, I would like to be an admin, but at the moment I don't think I am ready to deal with an Rfa (real life work load etc). When I am, I will of course let you know. Thanks again. – ukexpat (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New AN/I regarding SuaveArt

Here. As he agreed to mentor under you, I feel your input is necessary. Seregain (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be around to mediate and offer third party advice. For yourself, consider that his activity level has certainly decreased since he was reported to ANI last time--if he's improving, then I'd appreciate if you and others gave him a chance to do so and give him credit to the extent that he's trying to be more positive in his interactions. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I must say that I was giving him a chance and was trying to be positive with him, but the examples I've cited in this new AN/I give me little incentive to believe he wants to change and be cooperative with other editors. His edits and edit summaries continue to be incredibly hostile and accusatory. Seregain (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please note that Seregain has engaged in a large degree of disruptive, evangelical POV-pushing behavior (and is essentially lobbying on your page to have me disciplined for pointing out his own disruption, under the guise of telling you "I believe your input is needed". I've documented his edits in a series of links on the new AN/I incident, and it is clear that he has an evanglical POV agenda which compromises the integrity of this site and is now basically "stalking me (the same thing which he accused me off). Personally, I'd like to ask that you ignore him. Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I am a parent of two preteen boys. I am perfectly capable of looking beyond the accusations and assessing fault. Not like I've never seen goading or hyperbole, either. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow, SA. I simply do not have the words. Seregain (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, I just blocked SA for 31 hours because of his inability to disengage from Seregain, proximately caused by his nomination of Seregain's user page for deletion. I welcome your review, since you've been trying to engage with him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I told him on the mentoring page, I'm neither his mom or bodyguard. I'll chat with him about how to avoid such outcomes in the future. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed, good block. He'll either start working together, or he'll get increasingly harsh blocks for behavior that he's been told is unacceptable. Do make sure to go back and review Seregain's contributions too, though. If nothing else, he's also guilty of not disengaging when it would be a good idea. Probably not to the blockable level yet, but his hands don't look 100% clean to me. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the clean hands problem. I'll continue to keep an eye on him as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I will absolutely admit my hands aren't entirely clean. I should've done what I did in December when things between SA and I became heated. I took a break, but my coming back apparently annoyed him. He has obviously targeted and been harassing me, and I have admittedly been a little overzealous in attempting to deal with it myself. I will refrain from doing so from now on. I have tried to be civil, but I'm not perfect and have made a few slips in the heat of the moment and I apologize. I will endeavor to not subject all of you specifically and Wikipedia in general any further trouble either directly or indirectly. Seregain (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Disengaging before things get to the point where you begin to lose your civility is the most essential skill in Wikipedia. Give me a civil idiot who knows how to take a break when it's needed, and I can teach him to add and format citations. The temper, though... that's much tougher to control, and I speak from many years of experience predating Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To SarekOfVulcan and Jclemens: JzG is making it difficult for me to completely disengage from all issues regarding this user. He has continued to propagate a baseless accusation that was originally initiated by the disengaged user. I have asked him to stop, but he has refused. Can you talk to him for me? (Message also posted to SarekOfVulcan.) Seregain (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just walk away. Post one last time to say "Agreed, I'm disengaging" and then do it. Don't respond to anything else on the topic--politely refuse if directly asks, ignore outright if there's no direct expectation of a response. Get busy doing something completely unrelated, even off-wiki works. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages

Dear Jclemens, I would like to respectfully object to the deletion of the page MASSIVEGOOD.I understand that there was a debate before and that a vote took place afterwards, in effect putting the article up for deletion. I would like to say, however, that this newer page is more factual and that the sources are much more reliable. I also think the neutrality issue has been well addressed and that is why I decided to take part in the editing of the page. I ask you to please reconsider the deletion of the MASSIVEGOOD page, and I hope that we will be able to work everything out together. Thank you Tomo64 (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll put it back in your userspace, but since it was deleted via a full deletion discussion, the next step is for you to go to WP:DRV and ask for a review. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's now at User:Tomo64/MASSIVEGOOD. Drop me a note here if you need help composing a DRV appeal. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. I will try my hand at the appeal, and I appreciate the offer to help, so I might take you up on that! Thanks again.Tomo64 (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people

We don't always agree, but I always respect your point of view. (I mean that, and feel free to drop by my talk page any time to tell me if I'm off-base.) I went with Jehochman's view on this one because, doing G10 work, I run across a lot of pages that look at first glance like they aren't an attack, but then it turns out they were created just to embarrass someone. If I don't have a source, I'm just guessing. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you see my reasonable man explanation elsewhere? Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

this is what I was talking about. It can be fleshed out additionally, but that's a thumbnail of how I gauge G10. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as dealing with G10s, I tend to AGF on the part of the nominator. I'd say 90-95% of the things I see as G10's are deletable either as G10's or G3's. I haven't really seen much subtle disparagement on G10 patrol. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not all admins do that. I got threatened with the removal of Twinkle for nominating 4 unsourced articles as G10 when "only" 25-50% of their contents was disparaging. Did I mention the admin restored the articles in full? (See my talk page.) Pcap ping 23:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Surely it can't be as bad as that... can it? Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, looking through that, it looks like they thought you G10-tagged articles with both good and bad content. I agree with the general sentiment that one should delete only the minimum needed to render an article acceptable, but I think you got read the riot act too severely for a simple misunderstanding of preferred options for fixing issues we agree are problematic. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you feedback. Pcap ping 01:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of page for Rachna Khanna

Hi, I was away so did not get to participate in the debate regarding deletion of Rachna Khanna's page. Can you please undelete and open the debate please.Wikiuser7777 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored, but I've tagged it for notability since that was the concern the editor who PROD'ed it expressed. Feel free to expand the article to address that or other concerns. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of page for Buck (band)

I was also away so I did not get to participate in the debate regarding deletion of Buck (band) page. Can you undelete and open debate please. I am actually the owner of the myspace page cited in the deletion comment as well as a former band member of Buck who approved the record label's entry for us. Don't remember everything that was on the page but I don't recall them quoting anything we didn't own. Appreciate the help.pepperberry (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Borrowed a bit of that phrasing, though, didn't we? :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, this one needs a good bit of work:

First off, the editor who nominated it for deletion noted it as "just wikified version of myspace page with occasional formatting improvements". While you probably do own the copyright to the Myspace text, we can't assume that. Please see donating copyrighted materials for how to assign permission for Wikipedia and other sites to reuse that text.

However, the second big problem is that the text doesn't assert anything of importance. Why is "Buck" different or special than any other band? You want to make sure that whatever version gets put back, it clearly asserts something that meets at least one of the criteria listed in WP:BAND.

Finally, the article is unsourced. It needs to have references in reliable, independent sources. For bands, the threshold is set reasonably low--review articles in local weeklies are just fine--but there has to be some coverage that doesn't just come from the band.

In light of all these, if I were in your shoes, I'd take stock of the notability requirements, the coverage you've received in the industry or local press, and rewrite an article from scratch. Let me know if you need help with any of that. Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Rodrigo Bolinha

Hello Jclemens

The page Rodrigo Bolinha has been deleted, but the user recreated in User:Rodrigo Bolinha, and categorized in Category:Brazilian surfers. In pt.wiki this is not allowed, but I dont know how to proceed here.

Thank you Adailton (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Around here, you could probably tag it with {{csd-g11}}. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I happened to notice you editing DartMUD, and recognized your name, which was pretty cool. For what it's worth, I play as Viamar. -- Pakaran 05:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Control4

Hello,

I'm writing because I notice you have previously deleted Control4 for advertising.

I was thinking of starting that article and wondered if it had any meaningful content in the past. Presently, I have no doubt that the company itself is sufficiently notable to warrant an article (I have no affiliation with them other than owning some of their products) but wanted to know if there was anything salvageable as a starting point. Reswobslc (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a whole lot there, but I stuck what WAS there at User:Reswobslc/Control4. I don't suspect any of it will be useable. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have completely rewritten the article and moved it back to article space. As it's far from my first article, I doubt you'll object, but you being the original deleter, thought I'd let you know just so you had a chance to weigh in on it. Reswobslc (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless an article was deleted by a full-blown AfD discussion (this wasn't), it's eligible to be returned back to mainspace. Of course, if the problem wasn't fixed it's likely to just get deleted again, but you should be OK if you've addressed the concerns. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting AfDs

See User talk:DGG#Interesting AfDs, which is a sort of notice board given the traffic it gets. :-) Pcap ping 22:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Exclusive invitation

Jclemens/Archive 5, Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome wants you!

We are currently asking for concrete, constructive proposals on how to avoid the deletion of 48,000 articles created by 17,500 editors through sourcing. These constructive proposals will then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome << For now, participation on this userpage is by inviation only.

I am asking editors who are leaders to comment first to get this discussion going. Ikip 19:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of The Lottery (film)

I propose that the wikipedia article for The Lottery (film) [2] should be un-deleted. It has been mentioned on at least 3 news web sites, including cnbc.com: [3] [4] [5]. More are likely to appear as the release date approaches, since the topic is very widely discussed in education news, and because Obama has endorsed the project discussed in the film [6]. Olorinish (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored, feel free to add those sources to the article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ansiklopedika

Just wanted to let you know that Ansiklopedika, which you last deleted in October, was recreated for a forth time.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nuked it again as G4--you might want to have a chat with the creator about DRV. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

template change

BLP is quite clear that a site or any other material published by a person is an acceptable reliable source for an article on that person. Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. Point 1 & 5 in WP:SELFPUB have to do with the article and the material in it, not the source used; it makes very little sense to connect them to a template about sourcing. Point 4, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" is something which uses editorial judgment. In the overwhelming majority of cases, (claimed) official/personal sites are acceptable, reliable sources. So I very strongly object to this change of the template, and request it be changed back.(copied from rfc talk page).John Z (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!John Z (talk)

No problem. Once you get the hang of the egolessness of BRD, I find it works really well. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GAH-icon

Template:GAH-icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Paladyn. Journal of Behavioral Robotics

Dear Jclemens,

I am writing regarding the Paladyn. Journal of Behavioral Robotics article recently deleted due to expired PROD. The reason for the deletion was not meeting the Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) criteria. I would like to argue that this article should be restored.

I have studied the requirements imposed by Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) and in my opinion the journal can be considered notable according to those requirements. Moreover, the quality of the the article and the journal itself does not seem to differ from the quality of other articles and new journals described in Wikipedia. Below I summarize my arguments:

• Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) mentions three main notability criteria. Due to the fact that the journal was recently established, only the first point "the journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." under the interpretation stated on the same page ("The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field.") can be considered relevant. At the same time, other arguments that are not explicitly listed should be taken into consideration, as Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) suggests: "Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may well exist."
• Regarding the indexing services. The journal is published by Versita, an important Central Europe science publisher. Versita recently strengthened their journal co-publishing partnership with Springer (http://versita.com/press/news/). This means that all articles published by Paladyn will distributed by Springer and indexed by SpringerLink. Additionally, negotiations with the following services are ongoing:
  • Fluidex
  • Applied Science & Technology Abstracts
  • Communication & Mass Media Complete
  • Communication Abstracts
  • Computer Abstracts International Database
  • Computer & Communications Security Abstracts
  • Computer and Information Systems Abstracts
  • Computer Science Index
  • Computer Source
  • Computers & Applied Sciences Complete
  • DBLP
  • Electronics and Communications Abstracts
  • Information Science & Technology Abstracts (ISTA)
  • Internet & Personal Computing Abstracts
  • Inspec
  • Referativnyi Zhurnal (VINITI)
  • Science & Technology Collection
  • Science and Technology Digest
  • Wilson Applied Science & Technology Abstracts
• The journal has been mentioned multiple times on the mailing lists that gather the scientific community pursuing research on the topics from within the scope of Paladyn and is now widely recognized.
• The editorial board of the journal consists of renowned experts in the field of robotics (http://versita.com/science/engineering/paladyn/editors/) which guarantees high quality of the articles published by the journal.
• Finally, the fact that other articles exist that describe new scientific journals (e.g. Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research or Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters) creates a precedent and suggests that the aforementioned arguments should be considered while judging notability of journals that have been recently established, especially in a highly dynamic field of research such as robotics.

I will be glad to provide additional information about the journal or adapt the article so that it meets the standards of Wikipedia.

Regards, Andrzej —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Pronobis (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it. You didn't need to make that detailed an argument for a PROD undeletion, by the way. Feel free to keep improving sources and coverage, or the editor who nominated it for PROD may nominate it for a full deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As you know, it was deleted because it was a copy of the journal's home page. Even if it were rewritten, though , I don;t see how it could possibly be considered notable: for one thing, the journal; has not yet been published. I suppose it is conceivable that a journal from a famous publisher might generate so much pre-publication comment that it might be notable, but this is going to be exceedingly rare--I don;t think we have ever accepted a journal article here on that basis. . A journal like this from an essentially unknown publisher, even if associated with Springer. is not even remotely likely to be--it is still at the stage of trying to get its first articles. But even when it publishes them, they cannot possibly be notable until some other people have at least cited them. How much they need to be cited is not an absolute figure, but it would normally take several years; I know publishers normally figure that the first 3 years of a journal, it hasn't a chance of breaking even and will have to be subsidized, and that's a good working rule. what you say above underscores this: you are hoping that some indexes will include you. But they haven't. for a journal in the sciences, we normally expect that it be included in the major indexing service in the field at the very least, and in your case the only ones above that would come in that category are Inspec and just possibly Information Science & Technology Abstracts.

As for your comparison. Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research has published two complete vols (9 issues) and is in the middle of a third. It is indexed in both Scopus and one of the major indexes in its subject field, Embase. Even so, I think notability is very borderline. It has not yet been tested by a discussion here. Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters is one of the exceptional sort of journals which will be immediately important. why? because it is published by the ACS, by far the most important and prestigious publisher in the subject, and it is published as a complement of one of its most successful journals, Journal of Physical Chemistry, one of the top 10 chemistry journals worldwide. . I'd be prepared to say that any new journal from such a society is likely to be notable immediately, or perhaps even in advance of publication, just as would be the next book of an extremely famous author. I chose the words deliberately, "extremely famous". Frankly, when I see a new entry in a field compare its embryonic publication product with one from the most notable producer there is and claim equal status, I take it as a negative sign that they are resorting to one of the most unlikely of all possible PR tactics. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for restoring the PROD--didn't see that it was a copyvio at the time. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Spark Plug Entertainment

Please undelete Spark Plug Entertainment, which I prodded a little more than a week ago. I believe that this content can be merged to Michael Schelp after MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) finishes his draft at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Sandbox/Michael Schelp. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've undeleted it, but I've also edited out unsourced negative statements. If the films they create are ripoffs, provide a citation to a reliable source which calls them ripoffs. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Stab Proof Scarecrows

You removed a {{prod}} from Stab Proof Scarecrows with the explanation that the article had already been deleted by a prod once, and therefore was not eligible to be prod'ed again. First, I can't find any entry for this article in the deletion log. Second, the policy about proposed deletion does not disallow a previously deleted article from being prod'ed, it only disallows an article whose previous prod has been denied. The article has now been brought to AFD, but I think we could have saved the discussion. Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm always trying to learn the policies better!). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• here is where it was deleted previously, which makes it inelidible per Wikipedia:PROD#Deleting criterion 3. I do sometimes go ahead and delete stuff via PROD where it's clear that a past article was PROD'ed 3+ years ago, or the previous article was unrelated to the current article, but nothing of the sort appeared to apply in this case. I certainly won't be !voting to keep the article--I don't particularly care one way or the other about it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unearthed Arcana

Figure Unearthed Arcana is ready for a GAN yet? :) BOZ (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and nom it. I'll pick it up and get to it when I get a chance. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! BOZ (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt

You may want to take a look at the ANI thread on him. I've added a new proposal.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. You've more faith in his ability to change than I do. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd Woodson (grenade launcher guy arrest)

Here is another dubious afd for a person with national press coverage. Deleters outnumber savers. The guy fits the pattern of a Jihad army base attack, which is why some of the people have voted to delete claiming it is only one event that nobody cares about. Bachcell (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Lloyd R. Woodson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bobby McGee's

Hi Jclemens

I notice that The Bobby McGee's page was deleted. Is it ok to re-jig it, reference and re-submit? There is an awful lot of opinion in the article, but I've dug up sources for most of the salient points. and will delete anything without references. They are largely UK-based, so understandable that you might question notability. But they are really rather well-regarded on the indie scene obviously...

Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to update it and re-create it. Do you need a copy of the deleted article? Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No it's ok, got the cached version from google. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.59.225 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Shon Brooks

Hello J Clemens,

Thank you for all your assistance. Please reestablish or bring back the Shon Brooks prod. Their are plenty of articles surrounding the S.O.B trademark that Shon Brooks is the creator of. Please reference the S.O.B. (Socially Offensive Behavior) on B.E.T. Networks which is a spinoff of his production with Brooks Financial & Entertainment Consultants. I am puzzled on why the Google News is not recognizing this, however, their normal search engines do recognize it. Please reconsider bringing it back on a permanent basis. Have a great week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habeebah‎ (talk • contribs)

I've brought it back, but the article sucks. I've deleted a number of the sillier claims. It's promotional in tone, unreferenced, and alleges that it is a biography of a living person. You have until someone notices what a poor article this is and nominates it for deletion to improve it. I may nominate it myself in a day or two, so get moving or it will vanish again. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive. I concurred with the AFD nom per WP:V and possible copy-paste. (To Habeebah, not because "the article sucks"; bad articles can be fixed, but copyvios and unsourced BLPs get pruned.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Fisher Queen apparently had the article watchlisted. I was tempted to not restore the prod per BLP concerns, but decided to restore and edit/tag instead. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Request save

Lloyd R. Woodson just got deleted for completely lame reasons, the real reason appears to be to supress what appears to be a likely jihad army base attack similar to the Little Rock Recruiting Office and Fort Hood shooting. Could you save it, or get me access to the source so that it can be saved in case it gets restarted when they figure out it was a terrorist attack plot?Bachcell (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Userified to User:Bachcell/Lloyd R. Woodson. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You will be blocked from editing wikipedia

I just got threatened with a ban for making this request.. I think it's the 2nd or third time from this guy. Aren't there civility rules about threatening people with bans or am I just confused? Is Orangemike showing good faith and civility? Bachcell (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith and practice civility! Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Jclemens. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, I've not seen anything on this talk page from you that came across as anything more than genuine frustration. Why don't you just steer clear of him for a while, work on other areas that interest you, and let things cool off? If you don't have anything else to work on, there's always a backlog at Good Article Reviews--I find that a great way to get a "change of scenery" on-wiki. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bachcell#Making_it_clear

These also look threatening. I haven't heard from OrangeMike for months, but these folks look like they want to bury information just because they don't want an NPOV that presents both sides of a controversy. One fellow says he's removing something that lacks a link, yet the reference shows just such a link to JTTF. Another fellow says an incident isn't notable even though the section that was removed shows it was notable enough to be referenced by several publications. Isn't there anything else that can be done other than just running away from mean editors? Bachcell (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Never lose your cool, keep your behavior impeccable, get your sources in order, and be more patient than they are. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Undel request: Cr smith glaziers

Hello Jclemens, While doing research on shirt sponsors for Glasgow football clubs Celtic FC and Rangers FC (they both signed new sponsers yesterday) I was unable to get information on their 1984-1987 sponsor CR SMITH because the article and links have been removed. Other sponsors, mostly beer companys, have their pages in Wikipedia. Is there a way the article can be corrected and restored in order to provide the historical record of the teams' sponsors. Thanks. Irl32csc (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no need for every past sponsor to have their own article; readers are perfectly capable of Googling for non-notable sponsors. The articles and redirects to that particular company were generally promotional in tone--that is, they appeared to be focused more on promoting the company than simply describing it and why it was important. Make sense? Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Googling “CR SMITH” does not provide the historical information that I have come to expect from Wikipedia. Google is not the online encyclopedia. Why couldn’t the offensive material be removed rather than totally deleting the entire article? But, as your decision is final, so be it. Thank you. Irl32csc (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not final... any of the speedy or PROD deletions simply remove the article once, allowing for re-creation. Feel free to re-create it with appropriate tone and referencing. Generally, promotionally-leaning articles aren't restored to user space, because they can still get google hits there, but I can email you the last version if you need it for a basis from which to work. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Should it be done?

Concerning the IP 70.171.236.188, should a SPI be held? I suspect it's Catterick, an editor who's indef-blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If he comes back, possibly. You can feel free to file an updated report, but the user will either have to change IPs, wait a week, or give up and go away. Based on what he does, more serious efforts may be appropriate, but I try to nip things in the bud with minimal drama. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. If he returns, his behaviour (if continued) will be easy to spot. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That IP's made a large number of (unreferenced) edits recently. Since the user is blocked, should these edits be reverted? Swarm^(Talk) 21:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say use your judgement: if some of them are obviously bad, revert those right off. If some other edits are good, that becomes more problematic. If a formal BAN was ever enacted, then everything should be reverted per CSD-G5 regardless of their perceived value. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. They weren't banned, just blocked for repeated incivility. From what I've seen, the IP's mainspace edits (that I looked at) didn't seem disruptive at all, so I'll leave them alone. Swarm^(Talk) 23:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Undel request: Dr. Hackenstein

Hi. Please would you undelete "Dr. Hackenstein" (short stub of a film released by a major studio (Troma); no non-movie-related content afaik) to mainspace, Jclemens? Additionally, what's your reasoning for deleting the prodded article, please? The deletion summary at least (paraphrased: no refs besides external links added in a year, along w/few incoming links from other articles) looks unusual. I appreciate you didn't write that PROD summary—I *believe* it was User:JzG—though made a 'yup' rather than 'decline' decision. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 18:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been restored. I did add a couple of tags--notability and sourcing--which essentially sum up my agreement with JzG's nomination: the article doesn't tell a reader why they should care about the film, nor back up any claims. Note that IMDB is not a reliable source, so it really needs some good sourcing, else someone is likely to nominate it for a full deletion discussion. Best wishes improving the article, Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring. Reading between the lines a little, you're--with gentle diplomacy--saying you ignored the nomination statements, considering it on its own merits irrespective of however it may've arrived in the prodded category originally. I agree with the cleanup tagging. The nom citing being an orphan and still unref'd after a year as the prod basis captured my attention as, the spate of prods of a very different type of article aside, prodding for those sort've reasons was something unfamiliar. I didn't intend to devote much time to it, not having seen the film or being fond of low budget flicks; I intended to add a source or two if restored, as it'd be churlish not to and is almost the least I could do. On the IMDB thing, the last I'd looked at the then-ongoing long discussions about its use the general position was that for cast/crew details it was okay, because those came from the Writers Guild of America or the cast/crews' official publicist/representatives, with anything beyond that (like bio/forumposts/reviews) being unsuitable as user-submitted content... It looks like the discussions petered out eventually. For the basic cast/plot information, a simple link changeover to the distributing studio's website instead, which is returned from a quick websearch, would probably work I suppose. I played around with the article. Still a small stub, though better than it was. Thanks for clarifying your reasoning. Best wishes,  Whitehorse1. 21:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PROD is essentially a "going once... going twice..." kind of deletion process. If no one takes any action to remove the tag in 7 full days, the deleting admin looks to see if the tag is objectively un reasonable. If not, the article pretty much just gets deleted. But then, as soon as anyone asks nicely, the article is restored. It's an easy go, easy come back process. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

*nods* I'd agree with that. –Whitehorse1 22:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Essay Categorization

Hello,

Thanks for helping with and/or commenting at WikiProject: Essay Categorization and/or Classification. One major task we are trying to accomplish is getting every essay in Wikipedia namespace into at least one category. If you could hdelp with that, even by categorizing just a couple essays every time you log into Wikipedia, over time it would help tremendously. WP:HOTCAT can help categorize essays quickly if you know/learn how to use it. A list of essays can be found at Category:Wikipedia_essays. If you choose to help with categorization, pick a letter of the alphabet and notify everyone which one you're taking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Essay_Categorization_and/or_Classification so that everyone starts on "untamed land" so to speak. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know on my talk page or the project talk page. Thanks again! ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Junya Kondō

I prodded Junya Kondō, somebody else removed the prod notice. That was a long time ago, and I later forgot all about the article. Somebody else prodded it again. I didn't notice this. You deleted it. I noticed the deletion.

If I remember/understand right, a second prod is a no-no. If so, your deletion, though well-intentioned, could be called improper. Not that I can get at all worked up about this, but somebody other than myself might later complain. Over to you.

(Yes, my sympathies: being an admin can indeed be a bore.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you're perfectly correct, but I usually don't check for those. Some admins are just deleting any BLP with marginal sourcing willy nilly right now, but I don't see any reason it can't go to AfD for the full discussion, so I've restored it and sent it there. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (I suppose). Irrelevant, but ... could you please keep an eye on Zoriah Miller? (Take a look at its talk page, too.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

Hi, Jclemens. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Shon Brooks

Hello J Clemens,

Thank you for the update and your advice on how to improve this article. I appreciate the fact that you brought this article back. I have included the various references needed for final completion.

1)Shon Brooks Created the S.O.B show http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072000481.html

2)He wins award for USOC television show http://www.sdfair.com/

3) Validation Letter from USOC http://www.scribd.com/doc/25782956/United-States-Olympic-Committee

4)Super Bowl 2010 airing http://www.coxmedia.com/home.jsp

5)S.O.B show features Tommy Ford http://videos.wittysparks.com/id/2402089727

6)www.mdrt.org

7) 10 week curriculum http://www.ntsaa.org/Content/ProfessionalDesignations/CertifiedRetirementSpecialist/default.htm http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Certified+Retirement+Specialist

8)Clothing line is launched

http://www.franshatone.com/pdf/fsc_web.pdf   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habeebah (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 

Henrik Flyman artist page

badgering

Dear Jclemens, You have deleted a perfectly good page that I have been part of adding info to. Henrik Flyman is an artist, composer, musician and producer that has been around with album releases and tours since 1992. You claim this page doesn't add anything more than other band pages already do. To begin with that isn't true. There was at least one guest album appearance (that I remember) that wasn't mentioned elsewhere. Plus (and this is important) that this page helped linking several bands and album productions together through Henrik's name. There are many pages like the Henrik Flyman page you deleted. I can't see why all those should be excluded from Wikipedia? It served a perfectly good purpose and I know it was used by both media and private users to get info about Henrik. So please, roll back the page as it was. And please, as an admin, secure it from ever happen again. Thank you very much for making Wikipedia a useful place for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallica1980 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Dear 'Veteran Editor', I can only agree. Why do you see it as important to remove a page of great value? Shall all artists, authors or record producers be removed because they are mentioned on other pages as well? It doesn't make sense. I was searching for 'Henrik Flyman' this very moment because I need information about his discography for an article. I know it was available on Wikipedia just recently. Now it's not. Please stop deleting Wiki info just because you don't understand it. It might be of interest for others. I hope it will be back tomorrow or I will be forced to delay my article because of you. N.B. I don't respond well to fawning or abuse either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.34.219 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Jclemens, You were very fast removing material from Wikipedia. Please be as fast correcting this mistake and please stop doing this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.27.30.143 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Dear Jclemens, I see you still haven't reacted on my comment. I'm sure you probably mean good - but I think it's a shame that you prefer to delete Wikipedia information instead of improving it (if that is what you thought was lacking in this case - even though I have seen much worse pages that are still around). Adding to- and improving Wikipedia is what makes it great. Isn't it? Judging from your page, it's easy to say that you are a very active user of Wikipedia. I'm not. I just try to add what little I can when time allows me to. Most people don't have the time to learn every little detail about complex Wikipedia politics, but a lot of people have knowledge about random things and facts in specific areas that can continue improving Wikipedia. Please don't kill the spirit that makes people want to help and thereby learning more and maybe one day become professional editors. I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't want to use my time for free, only to see it thrown away. I don't have a copy of this specific material, and I really don't want to spend time re-creating something that was already good before you deleted it. Please correct this now and let us forget about the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallica1980 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Dear 'Veteran Editor', Don't worry. I found the info I was looking for elsewhere even though it took me several hours of extra research. Keep this page deleted if that is very important to you. "Metallica1980" is right, I will never bother adding info to Wikipedia when people like you see it as more important to delete other people's efforts rather than improve on them. This guy ('Henrik Flyman') has released about 10 albums, produced several of them and is a well-respected multi musician who is featured frequently in media - if he doesn't qualify with a page in his name according to you, then who does? What if people started deleting the info they don't like? Keep up this behaviour and that is what you create. Not good! Seriously, fix this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.34.219 (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Dear Jclemens! Please bring back the Henrik Flyman artist page! I can't understand the reason for You to delete it? I found new info to Me about Henrik Flyman on that page and I'm sure it could have grown with info because Mr. Henrik Flyman is very active! Thank You. Leo C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo C. (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Jclemens, Another question that comes to mind when I Wiki one of Henrik Flyman's bands (Evil Masquerade) is; Why is he the only one in that band that is not okay to get more information about by simply clicking his name? This according to a decision made by you. You clearly have some explaining to do, or even better; just bring back the information you deleted. Everyone can make a mistake but then you should also own it and put things right again. Right? Jclemens, I have read some of your answers to others. I find it very strange that you delete Wikipedia pages, and then bring them back if people just ask you nicely to do so. But if people don't ask you nicely, then you won't do it. Are you really in such need of feeling power? Wikipedia should be about information. Period. Normally I don't get annoyed about much, but this ignorance and lack of respect for other people start to get on my nerves. To begin with I thought this particular case was just a minor mistake, but it seems to be something else. So for the last time, PLEASE do something about this now. I occasionally contribute to Wikipedia since I like the whole idea. I don't intend to stop with this, but I don't intend to stay passive either when my additions are wrongly deleted by you. Let us end this here! Okay? Dear Jclemens! At least I asked you very nice to begin with (and I think I was the first one to bring this up, even though you didn't answer. I can't answer for other people). And I can't see how you can be offended by how Leo C. ask you? In the end, don't you have any responsibility yourself when you delete something that is very hard for us "normal" contributors to understand? Why should we need to be begging you not to delete our small additions to Wikipedia? Of course we can make a big deal out of this, but why should it come to such a childish level of behavior? And why should I have to ask others to bring back material you have deleted? Excuse me for having a problem understanding how you reason. It is not because I want to offend you. Not at all. It is simply because it is very hard for me to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallica1980 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, guys or single person with a lot of extra time to waste, you had your chance to ask nice. Go ask WP:REFUND--you blew your chance for me to help. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi I clarified

Please lets keep the discussion on the discussion page. Thanks. I am really surprised by this turn of events...Okip (formerly Ikip) 04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for clarifying. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

again, I am really surprised...disappointed even :( Okip (formerly Ikip) 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living persons solution?: Projectification

What do you think of this idea as an alternative?: Projectification

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Would appreciate your opinion....

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 05:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting ;)

RE: "There's nothing wrong with this, but it's an awful lot of work. I worry about the workability of the process."

Maybe if I made it clear what the bots did? so it didn't look like so much work? what do you think? (comment same on page) Okip (formerly Ikip) 05:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

By all means--Propose it and see whether it resonates. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

JOT Agyeman

Jot Agyeman is a renowned media figure in Ghana, West Africa. He has been actively involved Television, film, print and radio. His works are verifiable and his books are readily available for purchase. He is currently one of the most sought after movie stars of the budding Ghana film Industry. His notability is undisputed. Profile being re-submitted with notable updates.

Thank you Jclemens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistright (talk • contribs) 04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An article you previously commented in is up for AFD again

• I am contacting everyone who participated in the previous AFD to inform them the same exact article is up for deletion again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags_(2nd_nomination)#List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags Dream Focus 04:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 13:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin St. Vincent

Hey, the OTRS team has received permission for the content of this article. Could you please reinstate it so that I can put the relevant permissions tags on there? It would be highly appreciated. (It's ticket number 2010012510023961) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it and tagged it for notability; solving the copyright problem still doesn't demonstrate that Mr. Vincent is notable. But at any rate, it's ready for improvement. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Terra (group)

I was wondering if you know how i can see the old contents of the Terra (group). I plan on recreating the article with reliable sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article and tagged it for notability and sourcing. You can work on it in its old location, or make a local copy at your discretion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

oh ok, thank you so much.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

St. Mary's GAA

Please restore this article. This article is very similar to many (hundreds?) of other articles about Gaelic Athletic Association clubs. I was in the process of making sure the article falls within the criteria of wikipedia rules. Pmunited (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Happy editing! Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

My bad—I did not mean to reintroduce vandalism—I thought I was removing it. I will have to take more time to read the manual for Huggle before using it again. Sorry. Supertouch (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But I have a question-- I recieved a talkback notice on my talk page directing me here. How come the notice didn't appear on my talk page? The reperamand for vandalism was sent by user:supertouch but the apology was posted to user talk:jclemens. is supertouch apologizing to jclemens? is jclemens another account for supertouch? was the reply even sent to me? please help. I am new. And why do my talk page edits keep having these boxes around them? Efcmagnew (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He posted here because I left him a message on his talk page noting the error. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jclemens. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42/UCD Fencing Club.
Message added 18:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BigDunc 18:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: User:Jclemens/Rescues

Your excellent idea can easily be incorporated into the existing template:

This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

I would do this myself, but I am exhausted after creating the new improvements to the template. Okip (formerly Ikip) 17:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It could be, but it was one of my first efforts at template design, so I just left it in my userspace. I don't mind if it gets copied into the "official" template, I just never saw a need to do it. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Jclemens/Archive 5 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Jclemens,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why Dr Gillian Howie should be included on Wikipedia.

Dear Jclemens,

I see with low heart that you have deleted the wiki page of Dr Gillian Howie.

I would like to let you know that in my opinion she is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia for the following reasons.

1) She is the Head of the department of Philosophy at the prestigious Liverpool University, and so is therefore not a 'typical academic'. This is regarded as one of the best Philosophy departments in the World by many people. The University of Liverpool is also the original 'red brick' University in the UK. 2) She is one of, if not the most, prominent figure(s) of Critical Feminism in the UK and the World. 3) I have no idea what a typical academic is, but if it is anything at all, then I suspect Dr Howie of being, most certainly, a-typical. 4) She was one of my teachers while I was at University and I think she is great.

Much love

Martin Andrew Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin A Jones (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Martin, are there sources which highlight her particular career? Please review WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG to see if there's enough out there in print to demonstrate that she is notable and that key facts about her can be verified? Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ali Arman

I presume you're aware that the article Ali Arman has been recreated. The original concerns were "non-notable poet, probably self-promotion" and the re-created article doesn't look much different. --Yumegusa (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted via PROD, so feel free to nominate it for AfD. It isn't eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation, since that only applies after a full AfD. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, though. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ergün Berisha

Sorry my fault. The player originally a non-notable player but he made his professional debut on 10 February, passed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability (but seems rule is a nut shell). For just one game, should it be restored or wait until next editor recreate it? (the deleted version does not contain much content BTW). Matthew_hk tc 20:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it. Please feel free to add the appearance information to improve it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Two from the Vault (series)

If you would be so kind as to un-delete the article below, I'd be ever so grateful. Death metal being a fairly obscure genre, with releases appearing on small labels, re-issues are a big deal with fans--especially new fans--as they make available again albums which otherwise would be impossible to acquire at reasonable prices.

I consulted the list of re-releases contained in the article on several occasions, as I'm sure others have as well. I can assure you that Roadrunner's Two from the Vault series is a highly remarkable thing, and that the article was very valuable to people such as myself. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Two_from_the_Vault_(series)&action=edit&redlink=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.232.52 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored. I've tagged it for notability, since that was the prod reason expressed. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why Graham Langley should be included on Wikipedia.

Dear Jclemens,

I would like you to undelete the article Graham Langley because Graham is a notable storyteller. He is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia for many reasons, some of which are listed below with sources.

1 He is one of the most experienced storytellers in England and a member of the Society for Storytelling - see his entry at http://sfs.org.uk/storyteller/graham_langley

2 He is in demand to run storytelling workshops in Britain and abroad, for example Palestine with the British Council - see http://www.britishcouncil.org/brasil-arts-literature-archive-article-storytelling.htm International Festival in Rome - see http://www.raccontamiunastoria.com/en/foto-festival Dream On Productions in South America - see http://www.dreamonproductions.com.ar/zzpreviousseasons.htm

3 He runs the most successful series of storytelling events in England, the Storytelling Cafe - see http://www.tradartsteam.co.uk/cafe and for example http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/corporate/newsstor.nsf/publicbydate/37493A8DE7B39E3C80256FB30039C72B

4 He has set up the English Storytelling Network of touring venues - see http://www.englishstorytelling.net/page1/page26/page26.html

5 He is the director of the annual Young Storyteller of the Year event which is bringing forward many young people into the storytelling world - see www.ysoy.org.uk

If you reinstate the article I will add these sources myself.

Bishop pam (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Pam Bishop

Request for Undelete of valid Wikipedia Lists

Hi there. About 2 weeks ago this editor placed prod-tags on 2 valid Wikipedia Lists (List of American music artists & List of Greek musical artists). The prod nomination went unchallenged, and thus the 2 Lists were deleted. After the deletion the editor evidently felt inspired to continue placing prod-tags on Wikipedia Lists. I got to know about it when he placed a prod-tag on a list that was on my watchlist. I removed the prod tag and explained my reason on the List's talk page. Meanwhile, the editor has placed prod-tags on approximately 15 more Wikipedia Lists. Admin DGG has started to remove a few of the prod-tags. Is it possible that you undelete these 2 lists that were deleted given the fact the prodding of the Lists was uncalled for? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

They've been restored, but really. WP:CLN and common sense dictate that these are better off as categories than list articles, especially if they're not going to contain much in the way of other content. I wouldn't !vote to keep this in AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the Lists. About the necessity for lists & categories, I think DGG wrote a pretty good summary about it here. Amsaim (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence?

Yes, I think it's more appropriate that Scott be desysop'ed than commended by ArbCom and Jimbo for his recklessness. That didn't happen and won't happen, no matter how many times you bring up allegations (which I believe, by the way) of off-wiki collusion.[7]

The first comment is fair enough, and probably widely shared. (TBH I expected to be desysopped, and was pleasantly surprised by arbcom's balls). However, the reference to "allegations you believe" troubles me. These allegations keep being repeated, and my name dragged into them (I consider this a personal attack). (I'm assume you mean me, since I'm the one you mentioned before them.) I just wonder what happened to WP:AGF? And beyond the wikiethic, I wonder what happened to basic human decency? People seem intend in repeating this slander in prominent places, no doubt in the hope that if repeated enough it will be believed. So, can I ask you either to stop it, or to answer the questions I asked Ikip:

Why don't you ask people face to face, on their talk pages, rather than repeating innuendo elsewhere?

But before doing that, answer these questions.

1. Relevance. What relevance has this to the BLP RfC, remembering the adage that we "comment on the contributions not the contributor"?
2. Policy. Where is it policy to prohibit people discussing matters on a private mailing list? If, indeed, I was doing so.
3. Evidence. What is the "probable cause" for the obsession with my alleged membership of said list? What makes you think I would be a member of this? Why do you "believe" the allegations?

If you can't answer those questions, then I suggest you drop the issue and stop the smears.

Thanks you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott, you, too, need to take a step back. My beliefs were expressed in that statement to emphasize shared values with [IO]kip, not to seek any action against you--the entire point of that statement is that nothing's going to happen to you, no matter what actually transpired.

But fundamentally, you're barking up the wrong tree here for at least two separate reasons:

1) Freedom of belief. I can believe, and express belief in, whatever I want to. I can believe that Elvis was my real dad, that Barack Obama is secretly a robot, or that the moon is made of green cheese. I don't happen to believe any of them, of course, but my beliefs are not something you have any interest in, and stating those beliefs, especially in light of point 2, isn't something I have to answer to you or the community for. The basis of my belief isn't relevant either, but I have yet to see you actually deny that you were a member of the closed discussion group, so there's no "AGF" about it: I can't assume the truth of what I haven't heard stated.

2) "Off-wiki collusion" is not a personal attack. It's not even a violation of policy, as you yourself pointed out. I maintain the strictest standards of transparency--you'll notice my email isn't enabled, because I do all Wiki-business on-wiki. Disapproval of someone who does something differently doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. That doesn't follow. You can of course believe whatever nonsense you like. However, I do not need to put up with people posting things on wiki which link my name to some insane conspiracy theory, particularly when said people have neither the courage nor the grace to confront me directly, nor have they any evidence whatsoever. If people have a concern with my activities, there are methods to address those. When they repeatedly post such personal commentary on wikipedia, particularly when they do so mischievously in discussions aimed at finding policy consensus, they are being downright disruptive. What IOkip has been doing is behaviour which breaches any number of core policies. I care not a whit if people believe I'm an child-eating ogre, I do care when they use such nonsense to damage consensus forming around a key policy. I'm simply asking for a halt to be called. Your post moved in the opposite direction.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want a halt, then post a public and explicit denial that you were ever a participant on the off-wiki discussion forum in question. That would be the "way forward" for me assuming good faith. If you don't want to do that, that's your choice. Knock yourself out taking offense at my believing something you haven't denied if you want; as far as I'm concerned, neither the allegation nor your offense at my believing it are a big deal. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake. I have absolutely no idea what wiki-forum is in question, because no one has ever had the decency either to ask me about it, not to tell me why it matters. Self-righteous trouble-makers appear to have been posting innuendos and asking Durova what I'm apparently up to. People seem to be inventing stories about me, and then believing them because I've never actually denied whatever their story is. It is about as sensible as me drawing conclusion about you from the fact you've never denied wife-beating. Believe whatever you will without evidence, or direct discussion, I, on the other hand have just seen plenty of evidence of bad faith, cowardly and disingenuous activity.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's bristling at the accusation, I am surprised you've not bothered to read up on the allegations. [www.sofixit.org] is the site of the alleged forums, as [IO]kip has pointed out in his numerous protests of the "cabalism" which he alleges took place there. Oh, as far as the "wife beating" red herring goes, there's a marked difference between asking "Have you ever hit your wife?" and "Have you stopped beating your wife lately?"--the latter is the more archetypical form of a leading question that has no appropriate yes or no answer for an innocent person. The first question, on the other hand, is perfectly legitimately phrased, if quite direct. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the logical fallacy of the leading question. That was not my point. My point is that it is utterly ridiculous to "believe" that someone is involved with something, with no evidence whatsoever, on the strength of the fact that they've never denied it - and particularly so if you've never even had the common courtesy to ask them. Indeed it is downright scurrilous - which is what Ikip's behaviour (and indeed your comment) is. Since Ikip has never denied selling sex, and indeed you have never denied it either, am I entitled to post innuendos about you all over wikipedia? This is a pathetic attempt at character assassination, from people who are obviously incapable of proper policy debating. Now, believe what the hell you want, but please desist from such disruptive and poisonousness comments on wikipedia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In my jurisdiction, selling sex is a crime, there's a big difference. I'm not convinced there's a point to responding further. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then drop it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Linton Robinson

I don't understand why this entry was deleted. It was vandalized, but this is something different? Or not? We're trying to do more about Seattle Poetry and Robinson was an important element in that. He's also caught our interest in his own right.

The "amusing: influential but not much notoriety" this is snide, but not well-taken. For instance, it turns out he was enormously influential on direct mail writing, but this is not material that is signed or bylined. Professionals in that industry agree. As a consultant, he affected many of the seattle publications, including music publications--but not famously.

His inflences in Seattle Poetry, as an editor of several seminal publications, for instance, are hard to deny, but hardly of "widespread" note because it was Seattle. Back before Seattle was SEATTLE.

Here's a guy who's published several magazines, written influential features in many regions (including Mazatlan, Mexico, where he forced the reform of local laws and formation of a counsel for foreigners' rights...but not all that noted in the US, of course.

Has a half dozen books in print. I see authors here with less.

We're still trying to convince some of the Seattle poetry players to create pages and build a wiki presence, and here the first one we put up gets deleted because... why?

Nobody ever removed the "needs more reference" tags, but it's difficult to prove a lot of biographical things, especially anybody older than the internet. We have provided links to what we could, with Mr. Robinson's half-hearted co-operation. It seems common on wiki to copy bio data from websites, but we went further in asking for details.

The "self promotion" thing is kind of silly. What's the line? How do you determine between ANYBODY alive having a wiki entry and promotion? He didn't even put it up himself, and has not been enthusiastic about providing extra information, except some edits he did because we messed up.

What does it take for a contemporary writer to be mentioned on Wikipedia?

P.S. Sorry if this is incompetent or anything. We have tried to do things right, but continually find that the instructions are full of jargon and acronyms we don't understand. Our idea when we started on this was that wiki is a sort of populist commons. Now we're starting to feel it's only for the initiated. But that might be because we're not very technologically oriented.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been restored. The primary concern at this point is that it is an unreferenced biography of a living person. Please add reliable sources which verify the facts asserted in the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. How can that be done? How do you link to things that happened in the sixties and seventies? In Seattle people have old copies of these pubications, there are books in the local libraries, but how do you prove on things on the internet? How do you prove that somebody was even born in the forties? Thanks for your help with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference it like you would in a paper bibliography. Paper sources are perfectly acceptable; just provide enough information so that someone could go find it in a library that had that work in its collection. Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

It worked! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou2u (talk • contribs) 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to ask this on my talk page, but I found the actual source for "The Philadelphia Enquirer" that was used to write the Arthur A Goldberg story. The article is actually a pay to purchase article ($2.95 if I remember correctly). Since I am not reinserting what I edited at the moment, this isn't pressing, but do you know how a pay to view citation should be cited? Or, since we now know the source of the article is it OK to point to non-profit advocacy site -they DO have a lot of POV stuff there, but the article hasn't been altered in any way that I can detect. Thanks (yet again). Lou2u (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If they have a direct URL to the article, I would add it directly, but note something like "(registration required)" in the reference. It's my habit to do this after the {{cite news}} when I'm using ProQuest. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Man, I am glad you responded. I have been trying to find conclusive proof that the two men are indeed the same. I believe this should satisfy anyone who has any doubts:

They are the same age. They both have law degrees. They both helped former Soviet Jews relocate to New Jersey in the 1970s. They both live in the same state. That would be one HECK of a coincidence if they were indeed different people. Thanks to the "Arthur A Goldberg" article for deletion page that you sent me (thank you ^1000) I verified:

The Hartford Courant has Arthur Abba Goldberg graduating from Cornell and teaching at the University of Connecticut. This is the SAME as the Arthur Goldberg from NARTH. This seems FAR too many things to be a coincidence.

You are correct that Ann Jonah account is editing in bad faith. It is a whitewash. There is NO WAY that all this could be a coincidence. Lou2u (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally: EX-GAY WATCH has gotten confirmation from NARTH that the "Arthur A Goldberg" that is part of their board is indeed "Arthur Abba Goldberg". http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2010/02/narth-official-confirms-arthur-abba-goldberg-identity/

I am resourcing the NARTH article. Thanks for all the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou2u (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the only real problem with that is that if he has his own article, the stuff about him should go in that article... only. Elsewhere, it becomes a WP:COATRACK, since neither NARTH or JONAH are really about Mr. Goldberg--he just happens to be a person associated with those organizations, which means he should get a Wikilink to his article, where his notoriety should be explicitly sourced. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that is where it should end up eventually. Tonight, I have been looking over the tax returns that non-profits related to Arthur A. Goldberg have filed.

I looked into Jonah Inc. It uses the same address as Arthur A Goldberg's other "charities" 80 Grand St, Jersey City, NJ. He is listed as the chairman and his wife as the secretary on their tax returns. He started PATH in 2003, but has never filed a tax return yet. Also, something weird is going on with all these non-profits in this man's name. He has: CASE COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT CORPORATION, COMMITTEE FOR THE ABSORPTION OF SOVIET EMIGREES, Jonah Inc., and PATH that I found (so far). Goldberg and his wife are the ones signing the tax filings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou2u (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks

WikiThanks

Thank You thank you for your advice and support. We have disagreed on a lot of things in the past, but that has not changed my respect for your well thought out opinions. I truly am standing on the shoulders of giants, yourself included, and I wouldn't be here today without that support. Okip ^{BLP Contest} 11:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Broomball at Michigan Tech

I was wondering if this page could be restored. Michigan Tech broomball is very different than the broomball described by the main article. We use a different size rink, make our own brooms, and official equipment is disallowed. We have 220 teams with a full playoff bracket. Our game is unique to the sport, and should thereby have its own article to explain the differences.

The rules for our game can be found at http://www.broomball.mtu.edu/downloads/broomball_2010_game_rules.pdf 141.219.193.94 (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it and tagged it for notability and primary sources. I personally doubt it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but you now have an opportunity to improve the article and prove me wrong. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering what more would be required to add to the article to make sure it followed the notability guidelines. I looked through it and the best thing I could come up with would be a compare and contrast to the broomball page. Do you have any ideas as to what else I could add to make it distinct enough? Donabin2012 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are generally the key. Has the local paper run an article on it? Has it been featured in the college's own alumni mailings? Doesn't have to be mentioned in the NYT or Newsweek, but just something to show that among all college intramural sports, this one stands out more. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Prod of Samurai Aerobics

The article Samurai Aerobics was deleted by a prod. The search Samurai Aerobics -wiki gives 2.5 million hits, so the article likely to be notable and can be given enough refs. Likely that the former article is no encyclopedic, I will address any such issue if and once the article is restored. Request you to restore the article, I came following the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review to consult the deleting admin. Regards, Piano no who (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored, but I've immediately AfD'ed it for the reasons I've listed in the nom. Jclemens (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please restore DJ Scotch Egg

Another editor tagged DJ Scotch Egg with "fails WP:MUSIC", and you eventually deleted it as an expired prod. I think his accomplishments, together with this review and this one are enough to establish notability. Could you please restore

• DJ Scotch Egg
• Scotchausen
• Drumized
• Encyclopedia of Hardcore Chiptune ? Many thanks. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to add those sources. Still not sure the albums all meet WP:NALBUMS. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Linton Robinson

Hi. You restored the above article on request. Did you realise the material you restored included several violations of the BLP policy? The article claimed many unreferenced claims of serious criminal activity. --Scott Mac (Doc) 20:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't read that far. In the future, would you mind deleting such BLP material outright before you PROD the article? That'd help me keep from overlooking such things. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we both overlooked the material. I should have seen it and removed it, or deleted under G10. You should have read something before restoring it. Slap to us both, I suppose. I've sent it to afd in the meantime, although I'm not entirely sure if it is worth keeping or not.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, though. I do try and scan things, but apparently my eyes just totally missed "smuggler" in the lead, which, had I seen it, would have triggered a thorough review sufficient to spot the rest of the issues. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Care to block a sock?

SuaveArt is back. See 94.136.35.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Behavioral evidence is snapping at me with its beak. There's a loverly thread on AN/I as you can see from the contributions of said IP. I asked Sarek to block as well, so it may already be dealt with. I know I could have made an SPI, but bugging you guys is so much easier, sorry 'bout that... Auntie E. (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt

SA appears to be back under an anonymous IP address. I have filed in AN/I on him, which you might want to see here. Seregain (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked before I got there. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Mayfield703

Seems a bit harsh to block for just one edit--it didn't seem egregious enough to indef without warning. Is there something we're missing here? I'm inclined to unblock, but I'm waiting on a comment from you at the user's talk page. Blueboy96 01:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I only ever indef block for BLP. First edit a BLP violation? Indef'ed and ignored--I usually just call it vandalism, because there's no BLP blocking template on Twinkle. Of the dozens of accounts I've done this to, this is the first time someone's actually asked for an unblock, which means one of two things:

1) He's been here before and trying to game the system, or

2) He's legitimately clueless.

If you (or any other admin) want to unblock him, I would expect you to have a conversation on WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:WIALPI, etc. and get his explicit agreement to abide by them before any unblock. Since blocks are preventive, any time restriction on a block is secondary to (and largely redundant to) an agreement to not continue the behavior. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, in case you're not familiar with it... Per WP:BLPBAN, administrators are given a free hand to shortcut process as reasonably appropriate to prevent harm to living people... and yes, having a person's name and criminal charges, even if sourced, inserted into an article triggers that threshold in my mind. While it may look harsh initially, consider this: what kind of person makes a Wikipedia account solely to add information on a company officer's alleged criminal conduct to the company Wikipedia entry? There are plenty of answers, and not very many that indicate someone who is interested in building an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, on second thought, I had a chance to take a look at the actual link, and we have no way to verify it's that person. Given that he seemed to know what vandalism was based on his unblock request, I'm not willing to unblock. Blueboy96 02:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

One thing on your decline message, though. If you decide to unblock him after talking to me, I'm OK with that. I'd just expect you to follow his contributions for a while to make sure he's not sneakily doing similar things elsewhere and/or again. It certainly wouldn't be a "wheel war" for you to take responsibility for giving him the benefit of the doubt. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Greg Mcnally

Hi Jclemens,

I thought I had provided the context, prose content, and sourcing to contest deletion, but maybe I forgot to remove the prod tag. Could you please check whether that is so, and, if so, restore the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, the PROD tag was not removed, and at the time I deleted it, it was just the tag and an infobox. By all means continue working on it now that it's restored. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK - I thought I'd put some more content in, but obviously I hadn't. I'll fix it up now. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Incubation

Would you consider withdrawing the AfD for Samurai Aerobics and allowing it to be moved to the incubator? I agree, the article needs a lot of work, but the topic itself is encylopedic. I was surprised to see the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You know I'm usually on the delete side of things.....but this is one of those ones that I think needs saved. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I don't think you need my permission--I think any non-attack, non-BLP, non-copyvio should go to the incubator for as long as someone is credibly committing to work on it. As far as withdrawing the nomination, that doesn't automatically yield a close, since speedy keep no longer applies as there have been plenty of good faith delete !votes. At any rate, if someone DOES close it as delete, I'll be happy to undelete it to the incubator or to userification, whichever. I just don't think that it had any encyclopedic potential at the nomination time. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Whether I need the permission or not, I'd prefer to have you feel like I'm working with you rather than against you. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

  Fair enough--point to this discussion in the AfD if you want. As a rule, I don't meddle in AfD's I started, because I hate such prosecutorial behavior--I actively encourage the rescue of content I nom, which I only do in cases where it neither meets our guidelines and I cannot myself see any way to reasonably improve the article. To paraphrase George F. Will, when I nom an article, I'm either right or pleasantly surprised. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Chicken Zombies

Hello, just wanted to query your deletion of 'Chicken Zombies' article (TMGE album). It states that the article was deleted as the album was un-noteworthy and didn't chart. It charted in Japan and was pretty noteworthy there, along with TMGE's other albums! Can this be re-instated please? Thanks, Jordan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.20.132 (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it and tagged it for notability and references. Please add a reliable source showing that it charted in Japan, or someone else may come along and nominate it for a full deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jclemens. You have new messages at NuclearWarfare's talk page.
Message added 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Norton article deleted

Hi Jclemens, Patrick Norton is a very well known television personality and technology journalist. He is very notable in the technology world. This discussion shouldn't be a close call. Patrick was a Co-host with Leo Laporte on Tech TV. Host of Tekzilla. Hosts HD Nation on Revision 3. A google search has over 1 million results. Hit the Google images results and you will see his picture on hundreds of different websites. Search Google news and you'll quickly find a press release on Feb 2nd from Revision 3. One could easily find hundreds of citations. Tvaughan1 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Next time, please don't ask both me and REFUND. If you want to go to REFUND, fine--just don't waste my time tracking down an article that's already been restored. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Wikipedia editor. Tvaughan1 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RCR restore request

Hi Jclemens, I'd like to request the River City Rumble article be restored. It was an expired PROD. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.65.227 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored, but it's in pretty sorry shape. I've tagged it for notability and primary sources. Please make improvements to the article before someone nominates it for a full deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in the Woods undelete request

This animation was on TV, entered in film festivals, and featured online. I would like the page to be restored, or at least sent a copy of the page. --Redarius (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored and tagged for notability and sourcing. Really, I'm not convinced this meet our notability criteria, but I'm not going to nominate it for a full deletion discussion at this point. Please improve it. Jclemens (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Madz67

You blocked this user indefinitely for uploading various copyrighted images but now it seems that he is back as User:Madz76. He hasn't uploaded any copyrighted images and I'm not sure about the blocking policy here but if he was banned doesn't that mean he doesn't have the right to edit anymore? MS (Talk|Contributions) 13:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He needs to get his block cleared before he's allowed to edit again, assuming he's the same person. He's not banned. You can file an SPI on him if you want. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Patricia Rhomberg

If I remember right this article was neither an attack page nor unsourced. Stillwaterising (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It had zero reliable sources, and asserted that the named person was an adult performer, which could be construed by a reasonable person as negative. It's gone, but you're welcome to DRV it. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you userfy it to my account please? - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hrm... No, but I will (and just did) email it to you. If you source it appropriately and put it back, let me know so I can histmerge the old revisions back in. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for doing that. I couldn't find non-trivial sources so it looks like the right decision was made. - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Matthewmoo94

I see that you blocked this Newbie, in large part because of his attack article "kamau Kambom", who may be a notable person after all, see this search for "Kamau Kambon". I suspect this user is a 15 year old kid who felt a need to vent his anger. Would you consider a shorter block of this newbie? Just a thought. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. If there's an unblock request, a conversation about Wikipedia's purposes, and an agreement to abide by them, the block can end immediately. If not, there's no point in shortening it. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and I personally don't issue blocks other than indef's to registered users: blocking a username for a day or a week and then allowing them to edit again without any agreement to modify their behavior is punitive, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Como Street

I just googled for Como Street. The top result was a link to the Wikipedia page, Como Street, which is gone, but there is a link that says you deleted it. Here is your comment:

Not only is this article unreferenced, it is also hard to find reliable sources for it. All information was in blogs of different qualities, of participants expressing their experiences. It certainly exists, but ther)

I just wanted to let you know that I, for one, wish whatever information had been gathered there was still there, and not deleted, even if it came from blogs and not the greatest sources. That's just the case for some topics. I understand the motivation to keep things clean in Wikipedia, but sometimes I think the pendulum swings too far. There is more benefit to having articles like this than not having them, IMHO. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

request to restore Nathan Chen

Hi Jclemens,

I'd like to request the Nathan Chen article be restored. It was an expired PROD.

I may still fail your concern of “non-notable novice level figure skater, fails wp:athlete and WP:FIGURE/N,” but I’ll try. Figure skaters are not in professional league, a skater can meet the wp:athlete criterion without being a professional athlete. WP:FIGURE/N excludes novice skaters as notable, however, novice competitors at national championships may be notable. Only 12 novice skaters qualify to compete at Nationals each year. They generally have trained 10-15 years in the sport, competed through 8 non-test and 6 test competetion levels, and most importantly, they have to qualify for Nationals by being placed in the top 4 of two qualifying competitions, the regionals and the sectionals. Yet, in the case of Nathan Chen, he is notable not only being a national novice competitor, but also the youngest of the 12 novice men at 10 years old, the youngest of all skaters in the 2010 US Figure Skating Championships, and the youngest ever national novice champion in the US figure skating history. His remarkable performance “Peter and the Wolf” at the Champions Exhibition, Smuckers Skating Spectacular, at the conclusion of the 2010 Nations televised on NBC was probably what made him notable around the world. He also has other notabilities with references, for example, at 10 years old, he has passed the highest senior move test, his best spin ranks top 10 in the world among all male figure skaters, and he was selected ABC World News “Person of the Week” on Feb. 19, 2010. I hope you would consider restore the Nathan Chen article, so we could improve it.

Thank you,

abcpedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcpedia (talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article and tagged it for notability concerns. It's ready for you to improve. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

request to restore SSION

Hi Jclemens,

I'd like to request the SSION article be restored.

SSION is a pretty notable band, and its lead has received numerous awards for their artistic talent. Charlotte Street Foundation: http://www.charlottestreet.org/initiatives/visual/recipients/cody-critcheloe/ A showing at Peres Projects: http://www.anyonegirl.com/art/peres-projects-present-ssion-boy-by-cody-critcheloe/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.118.15 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't seem to see a deleted page at that title. Was it under something slightly different, perhaps? Let me know and I'll restore it. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Beth Hafer

I request that you undelete Beth Hafer. She is a notable woman and I plan to improve the article. Scottdrink (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed Scottdrink's accusation of admin abuse (on his talk) on new user contribs. Could you expand a little on what you did for the benefit of those who can't see deleted revs? Gigs (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Allegedly new account, with its first five edits, de-prods five pretty much sucky PROD'ed articles, giving an accurate but terse edit summary. I was tempted to block as am obvious sock of someone per WP:DUCK, but I decided to express an irrational level of AGF and simply deleted the previously PROD'ed articles instead. If Scott improves the first one I undelete for him, demonstrating a bit of non-duckiness, I'll then undelete the others per his request. Mass-PROD removal has been held to be disruptive in past cases, and Scott didn't supply any individual rationale for his spate of contestings. Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Gigs (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott, sorry, but the previous Beth Hafer article is an unsourced biography of a living person. As such, I'm not going to restore it to Wikipedia. If you enable your email address, I'll email you a copy of it, for you to source offline and then re-upload once you've added sourcing. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For your Third Opinion work

		The Third Opinion Award
		For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at WP:3O. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

heh. Thanks! I should get back and do these more often, eh? Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You're too humble, my friend. You've done maintenance work at the 3O page within the last few weeks and are tied with a couple of others for the 11th most active Third Opinion Wikipedian. That's not just chopped liver. Thanks again. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jclemens. You have new messages at Pohta ce-am pohtit's talk page.
Message added 04:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pcap ping 04:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Userfy request for Christian Owen

Hi, could you userfy this article? With sources on his EPGA award win, Grabby nominations etc. I should be able to address any original issues. Ash (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a contentious (an allegation of being a porn star would presumably be harmful if untrue) unsourced BLP--I don't put those back on Wikipedia "as is". Would you prefer it emailed, so you can source and then restore? Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Userfy

Could you userfy Morning Coffee (Firefox add-on). Thanks, Mikemoral♪♫ 03:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I could... but there's no reason it can't be restored to article space, which is where I put it back initially. You want it userified, or just to improve it in mainspace? Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It was PROD'd, so it would be best to finish what I started in the userspace. Thanks, --Mikemoral♪♫ 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for MASSIVEGOOD

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MASSIVEGOOD. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--♪Tomo65♫ 15:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work. I'm pleased to be able to support your motion for restoration. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Massivegood

Were your ears figuratively burning as you were undeleting this as the following quote was a post that edit conflicted with your closing of the discussion. Anyway, good on you for doing the right thing.

I can't see any logical reason why any passing admin can't restore the article without waiting for an interminable discussion over a week if they are happy that the concerns in the AFD have been addressed. I can't say I have looked at it myself but I do trust my former colleagues to do the right thing.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

heh. No, no ears burning, but yes, I was thinking... "Why am I waiting for anyone else to comment? It's fine, it's a real world phenomenon, and no one is going to really object." Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gary Dale

I noticed that you recently deleted the Gary Dale page on the basis that I was an "unelected politician". However, my claim to fame has little to do with politics but rather my work in the social justice movement. In particular, the FaxLeft network I established was extremely important during the 1990s before e-mail and web sites took over from faxes).

10 years after it was shut down, I still am remembered for it. Moreover, I have a substantial fan base on my frequently published letters and I'm about to join the national board of Fair Vote Canada. I was also recently called upon to help out the International Development and Relief Foundation.

I recognize that it's not always easy to figure out who is significant enough to merit a page on Wikipedia, but I've been elected to many positions on local, provincial and national bodies. The fact that "public office" is not among them shouldn't diminish the importance of my efforts.

I'd appreciate it if you would restore my page.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.221.253 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored, but you should be aware that it probably wouldn't survive a deletion discussion. Please add citations to independent, reliable sources that demonstrate non-trivial coverage. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perioculomotor subgriseal neuronal stream

The manuscript detailing the perioculomotor subgriseal neuronal stream is in review at the Journal of Comparative Neurology. A citation for this term in Google scholar should appear shortly, and it would be appreciated if you would reinstate this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willgiardino (talk • contribs) 08:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put it back in your userspace now so you can work on it, but there's just no call for it to go back into main article space until and unles there's multiple RS cites to the term. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been moved to User:Willgiardino/Perioculomotor subgriseal neuronal stream. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

RE: [8]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments. This barnstar is awarded to Jclemens, for his reasoned and convincing arguments, which I may not always agree with, but I always respect. Okip 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to restore Slide to Play

Hi Jclemens,

Would you please consider restoring the Slide to Play article? It was an expired PROD, for having failed WP:WEB and WP:RS. I'd like to address both. The article is about the site SlideToPlay.com, which is one of the most popular Web sites on the Internet about iPhone gaming, serving up nearly a million pages a month. It's been cited by MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30508084), as well as large gaming site GameSpot, who syndicates its reviews (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6233582.html), Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/5478058/street-fighter-iv-iphone-in-action), and has had its content printed in iPhone Life magazine.

The article is also reliably sourced, with citations both to its own content and to outside articles.

I believe the tone of the article is objective and does not advertise. In fact, when I first wrote it, I wrote it in my userspace and asked for it to be reviewed by admins to make sure it was acceptable. Admins moved it out of my userspace and live with no objections.

As the article is about an editorial outlet which by definition has been critical of certain products, I believe it's quite possible that the only reason it was flagged for deletion was because it was done by someone who disagrees with its editorial perspective.

I appreciate that you're taking this into consideration.

Thanks very much,

Gsadamb (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been done. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

Kudos on your statement about the clarification on the ArbCOM case. Regardless of what we as individuals may feel about the RfC and its verdict, we cannot support people unilaterally disregarding the overriding consensus found therein. I have a feeling that this issue won't be solved until WMF acts---at which point I suspect that the keepers/fixers are going to find the outcome much less to their liking than the one I pushed for... but we shall see.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the note I left Okip? Sometimes, issues need to be raised and defended, because they foreclose some options and endorse others. Without a full hearing of that option, it still might have been assumed legitimate. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to restore Milun Tesovic

Hi Jclemens,

Please consider restoring Milun Tesovic's bio. Please suggest how to make it less self promotional or whether you just require more references (a google search results in significant additional information to below). It would seem that he is one of the most successful young entrepreneurs in North America, so I am a not clear on why the bio was removed. Here is some more background for you (not as it would be written):

Milun Tesovic is 24 years old. He is the Founder and CTO of Vancouver, Canada based Metroleap Media (http://www.metroleap.com/) and Metrolyrics.com, which he started when he was 15 years old. Metrolyrics is currently the 3rd largest global music website (and 3rd largest in the US) & no.1 music lyrics website, with 41 million unique users per month (and growing). Having struck a licensing deal with Gracenote’s lyrics program, besides its direct search driven business, it also acts as the default lyrics program for sites such as AOL Music and Billboard. Milun recently beat 31 competitors from 18 different countries to snag top spot at the Entrepreneurs Organization (EO) Global Student Entrepreneur Awards Awards (GSEA) held November 26, 2009, in Kansas City, Missouri (ie: he’s been pursuing his degree at the same time as building the company.). The GSEA is just the latest in a series of accolades for Tesovic. He has also been named Canadian Student Entrepreneur National Champion, SFU Student Entrepreneur of the Year and was recently listed as one of Billboard Magazine’s 30 Under 30. Metroleap has also received a Red Herring Top 50 award in 2009 year as one of Canada’s most innovative and promising companies. Milun was also a finalist in Ernst & Young's Young Entrepreneur of the Year Competition for Canada 2009.

http://www.youngentrepreneur.com/news/milun-tesovic-music-mogul/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.149.3 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored, but I'm not sure the guy meets any of our notability standards. I'm not going to send it to Articles for Deletion, but someone else might. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Any tips to avoid deletion are appreciated. I will read up on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.149.3 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Makara (surname)

Hi Jclemens, I notice you deleted the above. Maybe it was right to do this. Just in case you weren't aware though, the real reason why the article was proded is that it contained the term British Isles - have a look at the user who proded it. Mister Flash (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you challenging the prod, or not? I'm not going to wade into a nationalistic controversy. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not challenging it, due to it being a relatively unimportant article. I'm just surprised that an article gets deleted almost by default when it's proded and no-one contests it. Perhaps low traffic proded articles that attract no discussion should not be deleted, if only to guard against those with an agenda - just a thought. Mister Flash (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

PROD is designed to be a lightweight process. I look at the article, the objective reasonableness of the deletion criteria, and the deletion history. If there's no obvious mismatch... it goes. Such is that way of PROD, but on the other hand, all it takes is one editor to say "Wait, let's bring that back" and I put it back. Unless someone is a real jerk about it, in which case I send them to WP:REFUND: I'm not paid enough to sit through abuse. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pokrajac (surname)

Hello! I'm a new editor and I put a PROD on the above page. It was deleted, but now it has been recreated by a different user with the exact same text. Would you please advise me on whether I should PROD it again or take it to and AfD? Thanks in advance! ManicSpider (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

PROD isn't appropriate the second time. Feel free to take it to AfD if desired, but PROD is not for anything that's ever been to AfD or PROD'ed before. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Gayboylaca

I'm not sure the user was intent on spamming after looking at what the website in question entails. I think the user may have been adding links to said website in rapid order if anything. –MuZemike 08:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but the contribution pattern, recent activity, and username all smelled a bit fishy. In combination? Too much to continue AGF. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Looking at his unblock request, I'd be fine with unblocking him after a talking-to about EL and spamming. The username is still concerning, though, and if there was more inappropriate behavior, I would be opposed to a third chance. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I didn't readily look at the username as much as I did the behaviors. Oh well... –MuZemike 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

why did u delete the 'zaheer' page saying theres no notability? the comments are "zaheer has been played on radio 1" with a direct link to a bbc playlist which states a song of his being played? i dont understand how thats not 'good' enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.253.136 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Question on why page was removed

Hello, I'm trying to find out why the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickie_Milazzo page was removed after and why a G11 tag? Were there complaints. What would we need to do to restore a version? Thanx, Tom TomZiemba (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK applied. Who, pray tell, are "we"? Are you perhaps affiliated with the subject? Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur A Goldberg

And I think I posted this to your page by mistake. Frustration about this topic is no excuse, but it is factual. Sorry. Lou2u (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to restore Org Maker

Um, hi Jclemens.

I was wondering if you could restore Org Maker. It was deleted because I forgot to provide a reference; I've got one now, which brings me to ask this. Uh, thanks for your time, and thanks.

Cdocrun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdocrun (talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like REFUND got it back for you in my absence. Best wishes improving it in light of the pending deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Django CMS

Hi Jclemens

I saw that you deleted this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django-cms

Why you hate... just kidding :-). Is it possible that you can bring back the article? It's basically about a free opensource CMS. We (Divio) developed it and set it free into the opensource world (Django CMS).

We really, really have no hidden agenda for this page. If we would try to make real money with the CMS we wouldn't have give it away for free.

We have at the moment around 150 developers (Django CMS on GitHub) working on the project worldwide. If the problem really is that Divio wrote the article, i could ask somebody else from the community to put it online.

I hope to see the article back online, so it may someday does «indicate the importance or signigicance of the subject» ;-).

I'm really glad, that people like you spend your time keeping wikipedia clean (i'm serious about that)!

So thank you for your help and time!

Christian from Divio Divio (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, looks like REFUND helped you in my absence. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A Shoggoth on the Roof

Thanks for your defence of "A Shoggoth on the Roof" in the AfD debate. I'm not as active on Wikipedia as I used to be, and only found out it was being nominated after all the discussion was over. --Sir Ophiuchus (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I went and listened to it a couple of times in honor of it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. The article Lloyd Woodson has been restored, but not the wikiprojects reflected on the talk page. Would you be able to tell me where I might find what those were, so I might restore them? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Talk:Lloyd Woodson ever existed, and I didn't seem to see anything in Talk:Lloyd R. Woodson, either. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I misspoke -- if anywhere, it would have been at the second. Thanks so much for checking. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

René Roemersma

Source This was not an attack page, but an article about a convicted terrorist. Please restore. Thx.--Meisterkoch (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See also RaRa. Cheers --Meisterkoch (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't heard anything from you, so I "dared" to recreate a better sourced article. Regards --Meisterkoch (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why this article is back. That men is convicted, sat out his prison term and gets so many years later suddenly an article on several wikiproject discribing his crimes and stating all his employers after his prison term. To me that makes it an attack page. Eddylandzaat (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The article is verifiable and the person notable.--Meisterkoch (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Janneke83 is today unmasked as a sockpuppet from user WH1953. Both have an unhealthy appetite for personal details.

What is the use of naming all his employers after his release from prison? To me this is an attempt to damage his reputation.

Several sources are completely useless and are only filling material. A novel is not a uselfull source. Because they are in Dutch, only a few people can verify these sources. Eddylandzaat (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've re-deleted both as G10 again, now that I've returned. Please pay special attention to sourcing requirements, Wp:BLP and its policies, and WP:TERRORIST. Overall, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to include these in the English Wikipedia. If there is to be an article, it must be neutrally written and well-sourced. Yes, there was one source, but it didn't seem sufficient by itself, so I erred on the side of deleting the article.

So, first: why should these articles exist? In other words, why are the topics notable? Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the article and the sources? No mentioning of any words relating to WP:terrorist. I am not sure, how familiar you are with Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie, one of the most important "terror groups" in the Netherlands in the late 80s, but he is the only one convicted for crimes associated with this group. He is also the only one to be known by name to be connected to RaRa. The article was properly sourced with sources like The Telegraph and New African. He recently got mentioned in dutch press quite a lot because of the resignation of Wijnand Duyvendak. The fr:René Roemersma decided to keep it, the Dutch and German article is most likely to be kept, but you decided out of a mood to speedy delete it with a reason that is not applicable. I kindly ask you to restore it and if not kept, then pass it to a regular AfD if you feel like it. It might help if you read the discussion about the murder of Walter Sedlmayr as well and the NYT article regarding freedom of speech about the privacy rights of criminals Wolfgang_Werlé_and_Manfred_Lauber#Privacy_dispute. Regards --Meisterkoch (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously I can't believe you deleted RaRa as well, please restore this as well.--Meisterkoch (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I am quite astonished. Delete first, talk later. There is no BLP violation at all. nl:Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie and de:Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie. Or you could have just googled it.--Meisterkoch (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Delete first, talk later" is indeed what the community expects me to do as an administrator when there's a BLP issue... that is, a question, not simply a confirmed issue. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So, how does the named individual meet WP:N/CA? Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for RaRa

An editor has asked for a deletion review of RaRa. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Meisterkoch (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

RaRa DRV -- Draft ready

You commented on the deletion review on RaRa. I have prepared a userspace draft, linked in that DRV discussion. I think it deals with the problem of insufficient sourcing. Your comments would be welcome. DES ^(talk) 07:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tons better than what I'd G10'ed. I'd still suggest "claimed responsibility for bombing" or "was accused of bombing" vs a straightforward assertion of "bombing" things: not everything is what it seems, and I'd suggest that be approached in much the way we call people "convicted murderers" vs. "murderers"--the former discusses the legal status, while the latter is an unqualified statement of fact. Good work, though, and nothing that would merit G10. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd R. Woodson mess

Could you please help us close out this sorry episode? Bachcell (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lloyd_R._Woodson_(2nd_nomination)

I !voted keep already. Even if I hadn't, this still might not look so good for you to ask me, a known "inclusionist", specifically to close such a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Mark Stephen Gray

Hi,

Grateful if you can restore the page on Mark Stephen Gray. Latest Bulgaria and Romania reports have just been adopted and he is main news in these countries.

Thanks in advance,

David Wright

This has been done, so you can now add these additional sources. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mohamed Taidara

Based on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 41#Possible_hoax and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Mohamed_Taidara, you can see that speedy deletion is required for this player : best achievement : in 2008 played 4 encounters with reserve team of PSG. Loreleil (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want it speedily deleted as a blatant hoax, you need to slap a {{db-g3}} on it. Having said that, I would not delete it on that basis, since the obviousness of the hoax is insufficient. Obvious hoaxes are things like "so and so is the love child of Elvis and Gandhi". Really, the article should be AfD'ed, since a PROD has already been executed upon it once. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Since he fit PROD but has been refused on PROD => made a deletion request. 82.247.184.126 (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Stanislav Velinov

I am now restore the "Stanislav Velinov" article which you have been delete it 3 months ago. This time I will put some information from reliable third party sources... (PS: sorry for my bad english and my mistake in discussing this, since I very rarely use talk page) Garuda99 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Best wishes writing an improved article. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Windmill (testing framework)

This is a bona-fide open-source testing framework under current development and in use in both large and small companies for testing Web applications. It has been presented at software conferences such as OSCON (2007, 2009), OSBridge (2009) and Devoxx (2010).

The information in the article -- specifically, the description of what the framework does, and links to the project site -- are relevant, important information for anyone doing Web software testing.

Please restore this artice -- I'm happy to add whatever information will make it meet Wikipedia's minimum standards.

00:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been restored. Please add independent, reliable sources to the article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jclemens. You have new messages at Talk:DartMUD.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dan Harris (politician)

Hi Jclemens, I apologize in advance if I'm not putting the request for the article on me to be un-deleted properly. I did read your 'read this first'

The full link was to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Harris_(politician)

I'm requesting that it be added again and that I'll get it updated and add references.

Let me know if you think there should be more info or if you'd like me to 'make my case'.

And don't worry I won't think you hate me.

Also I'm not sure if you've come across him, but I'm friends with Simon Pulsifer who at one time was wiki's top updater. He can certainly help me with the page if needs be.

Thanks,

Dan Harris Backblastnet (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been done. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Staniec

Kevin Staniec

i'm not sure if something was incorrect or listed improperly. please let me know what i need to do to undelete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Staniec. thank you. sorry for any inconveniences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.147.121.135 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been restored. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Warchant.com

Hello,

I returned to add a good amount of details, links, and more to an article I authored and found it deleted. I'd like further explanation for the deletion of Warchant.com. It was deleted as "(Expired PROD, concern was: Advertisement for non-notable web site)." I thought I had PLENTY of evidence already in the article proving the contrary and I disagree with the decision. I firmly believe classifying it as "non-notable" is Wiki administrator ignorance, as it is one of the most popular sites at Rivals.com/Yahoo!. The Administrator of Warchant.com and I respectfully ask for and would appreciate reinstatement.

Thank you, Donovan S. Clifton--RycheNNole 22:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RycheNNole (talk • contribs)

I've restored the article and sent it to Articles for Deletion. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Latino Youth Alternative High School

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latino Youth Alternative High School, which relates to a new version of an article you previously speedied for copyvio? Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Extensively changed. Kausticgirl (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

MfD

Dear Jclemens, it is generally considered good form to notify author(s) when you nominate something they created for deletion, just as it is stated in the template: "Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:MFDWarning|Wikipedia:Nonfactual Facts in Wikipedia Namespace}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s). I encourage you to do that in the future. Thanks! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 18:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Twinkle hung trying to do that, so I cancelled the script and notified you on the talk page of OUTCOMES, where you'd started the discussion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI moved MfD to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Inaccuracies in Wikipedia Namespace to reflect Noraft's name change to it and to repair the MfD template's link. I'd recommend against renaming it again during the MfD, though the name is still not one I think is as clear as it could be. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Unearthed Arcana

Hey, I thought you wanted to do this one. ;) Well anyway, the GA review is up in case you have any time coming up to help out. :) BOZ (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did, but I've been swamped with a lot of other things--starting another graduate program in under two months, and I need to get my last prerequisite busted out. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's cool. :) Come back to help if you can! BOZ (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the comment

Thanks for the comment on ANI. It is really frustrating the "combative" atmosphere that has been created here on wikipedia, and every month it seems to be getting worse. Okip 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Understand that I'm not defending you because you're you, but because what you did really isn't a violation. Having said that, characterizing deletionists' actions as "purges" was in rather poor taste, and likely to provoke such a reaction. Really: use your head, keep your cool, be irreproachable in your conduct. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you commented, you seem a person of principle, regardless if we sometimes disagree. Good advice. thanks. I reverted most of those comments purge comments anyway. Okip 05:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; that's a high compliment in my book. Ideally, I would find it as easy to disagree amicably with all the editors on Wikipedia... but I find that I'm human, and people who start out being jerks and/or assuming bad faith still irritate me. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So as not to get lost in the noise

When I woke up this morning, ANI was too full for me to continue. This notice contained this list. Not a link to an ARS work-list, but a specific list of similar articles.—Kww(talk)

Thanks for that. I had indeed missed that, focusing on the subsequent barnstar's wording. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:LGBT rights opposition

A user mentioned creating the category. Since you deleted it, can you tell me if there were any BLP issues, or have any insight on why the user tagged or blanked G7? CTJF83 chat 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It was G7'ed, which means that the author requested it OR blanked the description of it. Thanks for asking about BLP, but there were no such issues that led to that deletion, and no reason why such a category couldn't be recreated, to the best of my memory. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, CTJF83 chat 20:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jclemens. You have new messages at Okip's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x 2 Thanks :)

Next project

WP:Canvassing using the text of the deleted newsletter, either by attributing per GFDL rules, or rewriting completely, I would like to discuss firm, solid rules, about canvassing, so there is absolutely no doubts in anyone's minds what is, and what is not allowable.

Of all the policies, I think I am the most well versed in this one, and I can help solidify what is and what is not allowable.

You don't like the idea? (which I am sure you will not) I will shelf it, I have many other projects I can focus on instead, another option is to work off-wiki on another wiki on this first, then present it on the canvas talk page.

By the way, you do not have email activated. This will create an extreme hindrance in our communication, because, quiet frankly, no one can speak candidly on wikipedia for very long. Okip 00:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

MUME incubation

Hey, Jclemens. I would like to invite you to review my work on MUME in the Article Incubator, which I've put up for eval. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NONFACT

I reverted. Let's discuss on the talk page and figure out where consensus is on those changes you made. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 10:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Zombie (Natalia Kills song)

As the artist is rising in notoriety and has released another promotional single, as well as more information on her music and forthcoming album as a whole, would it be alright to recreate/reinstate the page, and I will also do one for the new single, 'Activate My Heart'. Many thanks, 01lander (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Does the song meet WP:NSONGS? If so, it should survive AfD. If it makes any legitimate claim of notability, it should survive {{csd-a7}}, but it may get deleted in a discussion if so nominated. I generally don't go around LOOKING for songs to delete, just evaluating the recommendations of other editors, so I don't have a strong opinion on this one. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate

Please note that attempt is being made to redirect / delete Tannhauser Gate without reopening the AfD which closed with a consensus to keep...... --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Everything looks reasonable there--an RfC is perfectly acceptable, though perhaps overkill, for a merge discussion. Is my input being sought on a particular point, or are you simply expecting me to jump in and contribute in a certain way? Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, but since you voted before I thought you should know about it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

2011 in NASCAR

Jclemens could you please undo this deletion, if you can of course. I would really appriciate it. Thank You! --Nascar1996 19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I can, and under PROD rules am obligated to, but unless you provide me a good reason why it doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL, I'm just going to immediately send it to articles for deletion. So... why should it exist now? Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Did the article look like 07,08, 09, or 10.--Nascar1996 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? There aren't any constituent articles about 2011 NASCAR (whatever) for it to link to. When RS start substantial coverage of those events, it will be a great time to start an article on them. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could be recreated later this year. --Nascar1996 23:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Gargoyle (band)

Hi there, I saw that you deleted the page for the band Gargoyle. Could you restore the page? The original poster of the deletion template was actually talking with me shortly before the page's deletion about removing it, as he based it on a search he did in english or something to that effect, most of the notable references and sources being in Japanese (which he cannot read). Provided the page is restored, I'm hoping to collect some credible references from notable japanese music magazines. Thanks, best regards. AQWIKI (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I was actually surprised that, given the state of the article, no one had contested it. Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Azeezaly Jaffer

Mr. Clemens,

I saw that the Azeezaly Jaffer page has been deleted due to a lack of sources. Mr. Jaffer was a top Postal Service executive who departed after a scandal involving sexual harassment and tens of thousands of dollars in inappropriate spending that was exposed in USA Today. The page was repeatedly edited by someone to remove that controversial information and replaced only with generic information on his professional accomplishments.

I am concerned that someone has tried to whitewash Mr. Jaffer's record with the Postal Service and succeeded in getting his page deleted. I restored much of the deleted information about two months ago, with references, but it was stripped out. You can look up the revision written by Rustyshackleford2000 to see the pertinent information. Could you please restore the page back to roughly the state it was?

Here is the USA Today article referencing Mr. Jaffer's scandal: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-21-postal-exec_x.htm

And another story from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/17/AR2006091700487.html

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustyshackleford2000 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Primarily negative BLPs are deleted unless the person is inherently notable. I'll look into it later, but I don't expect the decision to change--Wikipedia is not muckracking or expose site. Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

article for deletion robosapien-rebooted

Hi, I was the original user who removed the prod to allow for discussion. I noticed on your edit you said keep because the new york times "article" said it was in production. There has been some further discussion you may wish to take a look at as there is a couple pieces of pertinent info there. to summarize. 1) the NY times "article" is not really an article, it is a standard blurb published for users to vote on and give there opinions for when the movie comes out. it is created for every movie. prob from getting the info from IMDB. 2) This article fails the second half of WP:NFF which states

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

both of these apply at this point and come up as FAIL as there is no evidence of notability, the movie has not been released and wether the production house is still even in business is questionable. If possible could you add some refs which establish notability or take a look at the updated facts and weigh in. thanks -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed

Okip creating battlegrounds (ANI thread)   pablo_hablo. 12:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Watchlisting ANI is pointless, but I did look at it before bed last night. Thanks for letting me know, I've placed an initial response there. Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DRV

In case you don't pick up on it I left a note in response to your comment at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_April_10#Joseph_Patrick_Dwyer perhaps this an area that needs wider discussion? You probably haven't noticed but I have retrieved my bit and am feeling much better these days. I am still very mindful of the conversation we had with DGG on his talkpage just before I flamed out in February and would appreciate your dropping me a note if you notice anything untoward in my actions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing untoward about a philosophical discussion. I actually don't remember the particular conversation in question--it takes a lot of someone else ABF'ing about me to get me to remember a past disagreement. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Otha Vakseen Davis III

Hello, my apologies but I'm still trying to understand wikipedia and all of it's features. You recently deleted the article Otha Vakseen Davis III --I am his assistant and created the article; like I said I'm a little unfamiliar with wikipedia so if you could help me understand why it was deleted I would truly appreciate it. Vakseen Davis is the CEO of Vakseen LLC and production team TrackSlayerz-there most recent work is rapper T.I.'s newest single "I'm Back". I thought I had done everything correct for his page to stay up but it kept saying it was going to get deleted. Is there a way that this can be reversed? He has credible work not only in production but also as an A&R for Slip n Slide records. I really wish for this to be solved, if it can be reversed I would highly appreciate it and if not what can I do in order to get his page set up correctly for it to stay up and inform people on who he is? Thanks for your time & I hope I can get the hang of this to avoid future confusion. mizmari —Preceding unsigned comment added by MizMari (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to help. First, let's start of with the basics: Which independent (not press release outlets, not owned or controlled by the subject, his companies, etc.) reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, books with a reputation for editorial independence and accuracy) have covered his accomplishments? This is the essence of notability, which is the most common baseline for inclusion in Wikipedia--while other things like defamation and vandalism are thrown out easily, notability can indeed be hard to understand. Think of it as Wikipedia's benchmark for "Why should anyone care about this subject?" Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Request userfied save of deleted page

Could you save this under my user? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_vehicle_nameplate_sales_figures Redhanker (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the page has just been directed, not deleted, you don't need an admin to see it. Check it out here. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Limited majority

What's a limited majority? Intended was a majority that is less than absolute. Perhaps redundant? Perhaps used to impress that there exists a significant and coherent minority opinion? Perhaps a subtle slight at the majority, suggested they the majority are intellectually or otherwise limited? No, was not intended. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Any extra word in a policy is an opportunity for confusion. I would understand an unqualified majority to be something more than 50% and less than "widespread consensus" :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Polygon

Acedamace35 (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Restored per the implicit request. Article is in pretty bad shape and I highly doubt the gentleman is notable, so I'd recommend fixing it up and sourcing it ASAP before someone nominates it for a full deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bulette

Good catch on the blink dog - anything for the bulette? BOZ (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked yet, but you certainly can. Google Books is your friend! :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, yo. I had no idea there were so many MUD-related sources until I started hitting up Google Books for them. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jclemens - Good point, I added something to the Bulette AFD page.

@Chaos - I have been noticing! Let me tell you, keep up the good work on as many pages as you are willing to fix, especially those which are unsourced and undersourced.  :) BOZ (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wish there were more unquestionably independent sources for both of these. What's ironic is that they may be more at risk from AfD because they're unique/original to D&D, as opposed to run-of-the-mill fantasy stuff like unicorns and elves.

Chaos, many thanks for the MUD-work, too. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I figure I'm just going to keep at it until burnout sets in. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Mazes and Minotaurs page

Just wondering if this could be restored - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mazes_and_Minotaurs

I understand that it has been deleted for relevance reasons, but as a run of the mill average gamer I wanted to know more about this game (at least something independent). Also with the release of movies like the new 'Clash of the Titans' and 'Prince of Persia', the connection to a game based in this type of setting is quite relevant.

I'm sure there are more roleplayers out there (not just me) who would find this article of interest.

Regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.23.186 (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So, that's a full deletion discussion. I can give you a copy of what was there, but I can't just unilaterally undelete the article. Are you looking for a copy, or for someone else to try and rework the article so it meets our standards? Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm no expert on the game, but I'm happy to rework the article to meet the wikipedia standards (there seems to be a large group of fans whom I"m sure will help if asked). As I'm not privy to the reasons it was deleted, I won't make comment, but if it's not appropriate for the game to have it's own article then I'm happy to put it into something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_RPG (although it seems other games of this type seem to have their own pages). Regards, Marcus 121.73.23.186 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

email disabled

Hi. I note you have email disabled. Is that intentional? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I keep wiki business on-wiki, unless there's a really good reason for me to email you. Is there one in this case? Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess not. I had some comments I wanted to share privately, but no matter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I emailed you, so you can reply to me offwiki with your comments. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New Essay

WP:CRYBLP. Still working on the organization and thoughts, but Talk Page Stalker input is welcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Causa motion

Thanks for bringing the Causa motion, which will hopefully allow us to bring the matter to a head.

Just a couple of thoughts, which you should feel completely free to ignore if you don't agree.

For misuse of administrative privileges by 1) an involved editor, 2) on a borderline BLP violation, 3) Issuing a block without appropriate warning, and 4) failing to admit the error of his actions, Causa Sui is to be desysopped:

A) In "1", you could add "admittedly" before involved. Not a material point, but would flag to anyone not reading carefully that Causa admitted he was involved, and that 1 is not a point of contention.

B) In "2", not sure how to address this. One thought I had was to add "at best" after borderline. But more than that, there is the point that the "BLP violation" exception in wp:involved -- in legitimate BLP cases -- only allows reverts. Here, the focus of the AN/I is his behavior beyond his revert -- his block and his topic ban.

C) In "3", I would add "and topic ban" after "Issuing a block". I think this is an important point.

D) In "4", you might want to add after "actions" something like: and to commit to edit in accordance with wiki guidelines of wp:involved and consensus in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I intentionally underscoped and understated the four issues: although I don't disagree that they could have been phrased more strongly as you proposed, I wanted the motion to be straightforward, err on the side of "writing for the enemy" and focus on unquestionably poor behaviors. I wanted to highlight the involved/no warning/unrepentant bit, rather than make it a big fight about how important BLP is or is not. (It's from the Washington Post for cryin' out loud: that's not unsourced, even if they're not naming their source.) Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood. No worries. The most important of them was the fact that he not only blocked me but two-week banned me; but I ended up covering all the issues in my !vote (if anyone reads it, at least, they will see it). I agree the BLP issue is a complete red herring attempt at diversion, for reasons I stated. BLP has an exception that allows an admin to revert -- not one that allows him to use his sysop tools to block and ban an editor. I don't know if you took a look at the second Neutral's comment, and my response. But that is troubling to me as well. One would hope for honesty.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for once again demonstrating why the Community™ isn't given the ability to remove adminship from users. It looks to me as though the main event in this "tragedy" happened about five days ago. Want to bet that in a week or two from now, you and nearly everyone else except Epeefleche will have moved past this great injustice and won't care any longer? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So what are you saying? Intransigent admins who use the tools in petty vendettas with the thinnest pretexts of out-of-context policy support and refuse to admit fault or apologize should get a pat on the back? It's not the block: the block was bad enough--Read Xeno's support for my motion: it's his attitude that's the real problem. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that you're overreacting. And I'm saying that Epeefleche is overreacting. There's a serious loss of perspective here, one that usually returns with time. If there's a pattern of misuse or abuse of administrator tools, there might be a reason to go around calling for peoples' heads. Otherwise, it looks the petty vendettas are elsewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You apparently read the same things I did--I simply don't see it that way. The ability to admit and learn from mistakes is essential in adminhood. I've been called on the carpet for a few calls I've made, but never twice for the same thing. Intransigence is a big deal in my book; the community needs admins who disagree without going all Reichstag when they're told they were off base. I've never crossed paths with Causa sui before, never seen the article in question before, and don't recall collaborating extensively or recently with Epeefleche. I really am an uninvolved admin who's disappointed in the conduct and aftermath, and I call it like I see it. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Jclemens. As, apparently, do the solid majority of those commenting. A "vendetta" or "loss of perspective" might have been reflected in me demanding an apology. Which I've not done. Or at the outset -- before Causa's repeated failures to agree to follow policy, and misrepresentations that followed the block and topic ban -- calling for him to be desysopped. I didn't do that. The community is reacting, quite clearly, not only to Causa's abuse of sysop tools, but also to his later actions and statements, which have led to a community loss of trust in either his truthfulness or judgment. Nor do I think there is any basis for saying that the community has a "vendetta". Nor do I recall having had contact with him before. Nor do I lightly bring an AN/I ... in fact, this may well be my first, despite having been an active editor over the years. Clearly, the series of statements and actions by Causa are ones that would lead to him not being made a sysop at an RfA, if one were held.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I hope this issue doesn't get dropped. Are you going to take it to a RfC/U? The guy should really not be an admin, because it's clear he doesn't have the personality for it. II | (t - c) 00:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  I'm going to continue taking a break from it for a few more hours, because I just got home from work and need to sleep. I'm not going to launch any sort of vendetta--I think the community is providing feedback, and I hope it effects positive change. I really don't have a dog in the fight, so I don't really have a preference whether he fixes his approach or relinquishes the tools. It's rather unfortunate that he hasn't just said "I was wrong"--that would have made this so much less involved for everyone. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Fiber Instrument Sales (FIS)

Hi, my page for the company Fiber Instrument Sales was flagged for speedy deletion, and I was attempting to find out how to obtain permission to allow the proposed copyright claim. Before I could get an answer, it was deleted. Can you instruct me in the next step? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiberExperts (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure--see WP:DCM and/or WP:IOWN. Jclemens (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Norb Vonnegut deletion

I am new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if I misunderstand or do anything incorrectly. I very much appreciate your efforts and everyone else's efforts to keep Wikipedia as reliable as possible.

Norb Vonnegut is indeed a new author. His first financial thriller, Top Producer [9], was published by Minotaur (St. Martin's Press) in September 2009. His next financial thriller, The Gods of Greenwich, will be released by Minotaur later this year.

Norb recently spoke at The Annapolis Book Festival [10] on a panel with Jeffery Deaver and Katherine Neville. He spoke at the Arkansas Literary Festival [11]. He has been interviewed by many Bloomberg Radio, recommended by John Searle of Cosmopolitan magazine, etc. Top Producer is in print in 8 or 9 languages. In other words, Norb Vonnegut's financial thrillers capture the country's interest in all things Wall Street. He is rising fast. So he should be listed in Wikipedia!

Thanks for your consideration.

--98.113.71.146 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article. Please add this information and the links into the article. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BARN

I appreciate your sense of justice, and have posted a Special Barnstar to your userpage. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not entirely sure I deserve one for this, though. It feels... wrong, somehow, to be recognized for calling people out. Well, not your problem: I accept the recognition in the spirit it was given. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I like to think of it as standing up for a principle, or for the ordinary editor. Certainly not something to be uneasy about. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP Clarification

I've asked for some clarification on what "contentious" means here. ^^James^^ (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Reading the archives of that talk page can be quite a task, but it is also rather informative. Jclemens (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Article:Patrick Andrew deleted due to PROD

I am still trying to wrap my mind around all the reasons for deletion and trying to make sure it doesn't happen. If the article was deleted for lack of credible citations I completely understand and don't care. I was not even the one who created the page but came across the fact that Patrick had no additional Bio and being a friend of his thought I would see what I could do to fill in the missing info.

Sorry, I guess the question is, is the deleted article good enough for you to be willing to undelete it? If not, I have been working on my own article for him, would you be willing to look at it and help me clean up the new article? Here is what I have for the new article: User:Tcross04/Patrick Andrew

ThanksTcross04 (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So that's a good start. But how about some more sources that mention him--reviews and whatnot? The facts of his life aren't sourced--is his birthdate necessary to understand his importance? If so, you need to find a source for that. Do also make sure to look at the notability criteria in WP:MUSIC--that will help frame the question for you--"why should Wikipedia have THIS page?" Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will keep working on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcross04 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

mulla brothers

what was written on that page was true and i dont think it should be deleted if you dont beleive then search north devon who used to control that area and who is the most feared family there and in essex mulla brothers are the most feared at the moment you can ask the westminister council who controlled all the illegal street trading and the haringey gambling house which has been shut down because of gang war ask the haringey police who controlled that most of london essesx and devon are feared from this family and i think everyone should know this just because they havent been caught doesnt mean that people shouldnt know most of all the gang leaders and mafias in uk know them but they are very discreet so if u can put the article back on i will be happy if not i want a good reason why

WP:BLP--anything negative said a living person needs an impeccable source. That article had only one source that mentioned any of them by name, and that was just one guy pleading to a drug charge. Please be careful to read and understand that core policy before posting any more material to Wikipedia--failure to follow BLP will get your contributions deleted, and may get your account blocked. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

RFA - Age of majority

Posted here. Nothing against your own particular comments, I just get edgy when questions related to specific identity come up on what is ideally a purely meritocratic collaboration (yeah, ha-ha :). I've just seen so much childish behaviour from non-children here, I don't think it's particularly fair to draw that one distinction. ArbCom is a different story, I recall someone dropped out of (I think) the 2007 candidates on that basis - but they are dealing with a whole different level of garbage. Hopefully a general discussion may clear the air a bit and again, I have nothing against your own approach other than disagreeing with it. Franamax (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable enough, thanks for notifying me. If I were running WMF, I would, in fact, require it to be a hard and fast rule. But I'm not, so I exercise what influence I have per my own best judgment. Jclemens (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A compromise, perhaps: instead of asking the candidate the question, I think it would be much better to just oppose based on your own instincts. The fact you had to even ask this editor makes me believe that you believe he is still underage, so I don't see the purpose in the question. Most people can reasonably tell when someone is an adult and when someone is not. I think you can tell. I don't believe the question helps, and I think it is harmful, to the candidate and to the process. We should not be asking personal questions at RFA, and putting a minor on the spot like that doesn't really help anything does it?

Or, if you really are curious, why not email them? As I noted on the talk page, asking them to reveal personal information could be harmful for them.

We aren't going to agree on your reasoning, so I think this compromise is reasonable enough. Aiken ♫ 16:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to ask them. I only ask those candidates who have self-declared (as Ceranthor had in his past RfA`) that he was not of the relevant age of majority. Ceranthor made my question fair game when he answered Sandstein's question in RFA #2. Go look at my RFA history if you want: this is only an issue for me when someone else has brought it up. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well if you're not someone who actively checks out age, unless someone else has done so already, this is hardly an issue anymore. Nevermind! Aiken ♫ 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad we've come to an amicable meeting of the minds. Wish all those who disagreed with me were as polite. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I came here to leave you a message, and see there's a section here already! I understand your reasoning, and as you said above and elsewhere, you only mention it if the editor in question has raised it in the past about themselves. I just wanted to say that although I disagree with it, I definitely understand what you are saying. Personally, my two objections to the Age of Majority argument is based on the fact that unlike other positions, the Foundation have no objections to admins being minors - and the fact that around the world, the Age of Majority varies from 9 to 21! Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that anything I said was not personal - I have a great deal of respect for your opinion in many areas! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for the note. Most of what people said was principled and civil disagreement, which is a good thing. Only a couple of folks were really disrespectful, and neither you nor Aiken were them. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yours was a good reason. Mine is more general. The more child admins, the more this place becomes a playground. That milieu doesn't work with those who are serious about making this an reliable encyclopedia. I understand that the mean age of contributors here is 20 years old, but I'd prefer our admin crew to be older. Sometimes I wish academiawiki could divorce popculturewiki...I think that would make a lot of people happy. Auntie E. (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly stop the fights over WP:FICT, wouldn't it? Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Zuzana Light

Hello, sorry, tried to bone up on all this stuff...ran across your mention "G10 Unless I completely misread the article, complaining about my deletion of a G10 is a good way to get blocked: that indicates you have no comprehension of what Wikipedia is for, nor the expected standards of behavior. While I might make a mistake, odds are that if you made a G10, you really would be better off lying low and not griping." So I'm really hesitant about saying...but...uh...could you please tell me what was attack-y or disparaging about my Zuzana entry? I am actually a big fan, and think she qualifies for her own page...I was not trying to demean or defame her in any way...I was really surprised that there was no page for her at all, even though she's been written up by, like, Maxim, and stuff.

Again, sorry if I'm busting your rules, and thanks for any help you can give me.

Oh, and just 'cause I noticed it on your Talk thingy..."Mazes and Monsters" was a TV movie, if I remember correctly, with Tom Hanks. It had some notability, 'cause all the moms back at the time were going ape over D&D, and that movie made them all think their kids were going to kill the whole family, then themselves. It was in all the papers.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLOW93 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough question. That may be a borderline G10 case, but straight up it mentioned her as (if I recall correctly) notable for wearing skimpy clothing, or some sort of other relatively innocuous sex appeal statement. That wasn't sourced to a reliable source, and if that was a maliciously untrue statement (e.g., she's a morality crusader and she's now being smeared) it could cause harm. The combination of harm and unsourced won't stand, and there simply wasn't enough left of the biography if that bit was taken out. Make sense? Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It does, and I apologize-- I can see where that might be a problem. I was just basing the writing on my own observations, from her YouTube videos...I didn't mean to smear her or anything. She's really cute, and dresses provocatively, but that isn't a slam, it's a tribute to her craft (she's a trainer, so her body is, like, her product, or an advertisement for her product, anyway-- who would hire a fat trainer? that's what I mean). She's proud of her body, and, in one video, talks about how people shouldn't get down on themselves about their own image(s), but should be proud, and work to better themselves (physically). So....how would I go about writing that without making it, like, an ad for her, but not smearing her either, but still be factual and concise and accurate? I want to have a good Wikipedia entry for her, because she deserves, but it looks like I can't really do it justice, because I'm just not a good Wikipediaer. I really thank you for all your help, and apologize for taking up all your time with this. Oh-- for sourcing it, can I just put links to her website and YouTube videos and the Maxim article?? I'm sorry, I don't know what good sources are. Thanks again. - SLOW93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLOW93 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So, a Maxim article is a good ref. A personal website is an OK ref. YouTube videos are generally discouraged. Feel free to try again--write about what other people have said about her--Wikipedia is not the place for our personal opinions, it's a place for collected objective knowledge. "She's hot" is not objective "Maxim selected her as #whatever of 100 hot babes of 2010" is an objective fact. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, very cool-- thank you for the advice and the help.

I want to ask another question, and I mean this with total respect, but it's something I just don't really understand...if Maxim's editors pick someone as hot, that is objective, but if I say she's hot, then it's not? I can see how it would be one thing to say, factually, "In the opinion of Maxim's editors, she is hot"...but would it be all that different if I were to say, "In the opinion of at least one person, [in context, this would be me, of course] she is hot." I guess what I'm trying to say is that, really, in terms of hotness metrics, is there ever really an objective view? How about if I were to put something like, "According to the modern concept of hotness, as perceived by Western mores and socially-accepted cultural norms, this girl's body, face, and presentation of same all seem to conform, and thus might be considered hot in typical modality"?

Thanks again, and I will try to put up something better, and more fitting, next time. - SLOW93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLOW93 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, if Maxim says "X is hot", we don't say "X is hot" we say "Maxim listed X in position Y of their 'top 100 babes of 2010' issue" Thus, we're reporting objectively on the third-party subjective judgment of a recognized source. Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, j-- I understand. I'll try to repost something more acceptable quite soon, with citations of recognized sources. - SLOW93

Dan-Air Flight 045

G'day from Oz. Regarding your rejection of my PROD of Dan-Air Flight 045 due to the article having multiple sources, the three references are all to do with a single source, namely the official accident report. The article creator presented the links to the report access page, the report itself and the appendix to the report as three separate references. YSSYguy (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So feel free to AfD it. Just because I've declined a PROD doesn't mean it needs to be kept, it just means I think it needs a fuller discussion, because I can see reasonable editors (even if they didn't show up to comment directly) disagreeing with the deletion. I won't oppose its deletion if you nominate it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Righto, as soon as I have worked out how to do it - I haven't nominated an article for the AfD process before, but there's a first time for everything :-) YSSYguy (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion sought

As your time permits please consider providing a response on my talk page regarding a question posted under "A List by Any Other Name" RegardsMy76Strat (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Michel Mella

Hello,

My name is Michel Mella.

I edited my French page a few months ago. I am an actor, a singer and an adaptatator.

My page is strictly professional and bears no opinion of any kind.

You seem to be the administrator who deleted it.

This is most puzzling.

I would appreciate if you could give me the reason why you intervened on such an inoccuous page.

Thank you in advance

Michel Mella

82.244.113.147 (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Michel, your article was a biography of a living person without any reliable sources. We're in the process of sourcing or removing all such articles from en.wiki. If you'd like a copy of the article so that you can add sources before re-uploading it, please leave me your email address and I will send you a copy. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

School Project

Excuse me, JClemens, you deleted my school project. It was an assignment from a University professor for our logic class which we had put work into, and now I have to do it all over again. YES, my grade will be affected by this. Thanks so much. Please do not delete people's articles with your own standards of "verifiability," because it was a cited source just as anything else is on Wikipedia. Find better usage of your time.

-Student.

Please refer to WP:NOT, including "not a place for your original research" and "not your web host". Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sageworks deleted - concern was: "Non-notable company"

Sageworks page deleted because "concern was: Non-notable company." I stumbled across this today and found it odd that it was deleted. This company is an industry data provider and has been quoted in news sources around the United States:

- Sageworks in Inc. magazine this month (full page spread): http://www.sageworksinc.com/pdf/Inc._Magazine_04012010.pdf

- Sageworks in The Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151810534832360.html

- Sageworks in Reuters (check the graph): http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/26/gdp-numbers-not-so-rosy-for-small-business/

- Sageworks in Fox Business: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/tax-break-right-incentive-job-creation/

- Sageworks in Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1971653,00.html

- Sageworks has a profitability calculator they provide industry data for Inc.: http://www.inc.com/profitability-report/

There are countless articles about this company being a data provider over the years. Time, Inc, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and many other publishing companies use Sageworks industry data because it IS a notable company.

Restored. Please feel free to add these additional references to the article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

List of LGBT community centers

Can you please undelete the article on the list of gay community centers in the US.. I would like to but I'm not sure how. That is information that people really need, it could be a matter of safety because sometimes people are kicked out of their homes and have no place to turn to except for these centers. And yes.. if you're homeless, you can still access the internet from a phone or internet cafe.

06:51, 27 April 2010 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "List of LGBT community centers" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Violates WP:NORDIR, in spirit and letter; all red links)

Restored. In the future, please 1) make a new section at the bottom of the talk page, 2) link to the page in question with [[the title in brackets]], and 3) sign your post with four tildes: ~~~~ For PROD deletions, you don't even have to articulate a reason you want the article back--you just have to ask without insulting me in the process. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruby Diamond

I noticed you removed a BLP Prod from [Ruby Diamond], stating that it wasn't unreferenced. There was one external link, http://crawlbynumbers.tumblr.com/ on the article. It does not mention Ruby Diamond at all, it doesn't really say anything at all except some captions for the photographs. I have removed that external link. The BLP Prod policy says that the reliable source has to support at least one of the statements in the article. That external link supported nothing in the article and I do not think it is a reliable source. So since the article does not have any reliable source references that support at least one statement in the article, I am restoring the BLP Prod to the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I also restored it to Steven Kovich, the only source is the personal website of the subject of the article which is not a reliable source. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected the process to specify that the proper response to a contested tag removal is to send the article to AfD, which I've done in this case. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I also changed Steven Kovich to an AFD based on this change. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't mind if either or both goes away. The problem with readding a BLPPROD tag is that the next admin who comes along will then delete it, without looking to see if there really was an improvable source or not. I'm seeing as many as 20% of BLPPRODs have issues--although this appears to be the first one where someone else caught me screwing up a de-prod. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for closing the AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. -- Cirt (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't been taken to DRV in a while, and hadn't been involved in any way with the topic, so I thought it was appropriate to "take one for the team". :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Orly Taitz

We had a disagreement on this article regarding some issues about primary sources and BLP policy. I have opened a noticeboard thread at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Orly_Taitz and would appreciate your input. Please keep in mind when you comment that the subject of the article has been editing Wikipedia and is likely to see that thread. Thank you.--Chaser (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Rishloo

Hi.

First off - I'm not in any way related to the band. I'm just some guy from germany, who - whilst listening to last.fm's radiostation for the band "Tool" - found out about Rishloo. I really liked their music, found some reviews on their several albums - e.g. the recently released "Feathergun" - and wanted to find out more about them via Wikipedia (as I regulary always do). But, unfortunately, there was no article (what I found surprising). So I read on Rishloo's Facebook, that their article has been deleted due to being an "unnotable band". Now, my question: By what do you measure the notability of something? Sure, I read the guideline, but it's not really precise. It just more or less indicates an arbitrariness left to Wiki to decide what and who is worthy of an article and who isn't. It just seems kinda unfair to me. Sure, I totally understand the notability-clause (I mean, I wouldn't want an article on my band, as we merely managed some dozen people to know about our existence), but I think it should be clearer. In my consumer-related opinion and point of view, Rishloo absolutely should have an article, as there are people like me across the whole world, wanting to find out more about Rishloo (in an factual, objective and Wiki kind of way) and being left unable to do so. Yours sincerely,

Simon Manuel Cabrera —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantecabrera (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The best way to get a band article recreated is to do two things in writing an article: 1) Show how it meets WP:MUSIC's requirements, and 2) Cite independent reliable sources--even local weekly free magazines count--which directly support those requirements. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page Faith Abrahams

1)I am Faith Abrahams, nothing on the wiki page about me was false other than some gibberish listed when the deletion request was sent (I saw listed under deleted section added in sept "db|nonsense}}Salvador Dahliin disguise. He also regularily eats badgers and likes killing bats. Hobbies include: Badger eatingBat KillingNeeeee...') that was not there last time I looked - which I admit is not often. But as far as I was concerned what was on wiki about me was short sweet and to the point though limited and nothing false was listed.

2) that being said... that bit of added gibberish was not the entire article and could have been deleted without removing me and "not finding my roles significant" the page was by no means complete but I was ok with that!

3)The fact that nothing erroneous or wildly out of place was listed was the reason I never deleted it myself or commented on it.

4) I was very flattered that a fan of the Fairly OddParents cared enough to write a line or two about me - but OddParens, Buffy and Psychonauts are by no means all there is to my career. Though I personaly think that the second most watched show on Nickelodeon is significant. Yes I was only on 38 episodes - yes that is correct, 38 not 12... also Psychonauts was one of the largest selling video games of its day - significant... and Buffy is still in repeats around the world - significant... also I have been in several smaller movies not listed on Imdb, but unlike many people I do not list every word I say on film on Imdb. Nor does Imdb list the fact that I have had a long and successful career doing commercial voice-over and won awards for some of my work. I do not appreciate my career being dismissed as "insignificant" when obviously the only source sought out was Imdb.

5) You state "if you ask why do you hate me... etc" you will know your page was not read, oh it was read but - well sir I am sorry to say that does not make your termination/deletion statement any less offensive!!! You do not find my career 'significant'? And just who exactly are you? The fact that other people fill in Imdb does not make it any more a complete resume than wiki is complete and obviously your editorial research is less than complete... way to go!

Feather8816 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been restored. Not because you claim to be Faith Abrahams (no offense, but I have no way of proving that), but because all that it takes to restore an article deleted by the "proposed deletion" (PROD) process is a request. I agree there's nothing particularly offensive there, and I wouldn't restore it if it was. However, there's a concern that Faith (or "you", if you are indeed her) don't meet the notability standards for creative professionals, as well as a concern that the material present in that article isn't sourced to more than IMDB. If you'd like to improve the article, please feel free to do so within the limits of our conflict of interest policy. Many minor actors seem to write articles about themselves in an attempt to increase their prominence. That doesn't appear to be the case here, but it's a common enough pitfall that I thought I'd mention it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens: I do thank you for realizing this wasn't the case(meaning that I didn't put this page in myself); being my first log in to wikipedia I followed directions which I believed allowed response to me at my personal email from you... I however am not sure if this was done correctly or not. What proof you would like as to who I am and how long I have been in the field - well I would be happy to supply that to you but for all that information to be on the site - well that isn't my intention either. I am familiar neither on how to verify who I am privately to you nor on what you would consider verified information. If you are interested in this please do contact me and I will do what I can to do so... if not I am just pleased that I am no longer the only member of the Fairly OddParents cast whose page was deleted! Thank you for your response. Feather8816 (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Abrahams ErikHaugen (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The nice thing about Wikipedia in cases like this is that it really doesn't matter who you actually are. Since Wikipedia relies on published reliable sources, anything in the article should be able to be found in a news site on the web or in a print publication. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Madhuri Gupta

I just wanted to let you know that Madhuri Gupta has been recreated, with almost exactly the same text as before. — e. ripley\^talk 14:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. G10'ed again and salted. Someone can feel free to engage me here or take it to DRV. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear, I am really shocked that this page has been deleted twice by you. Moreover I went through the initial page which was cached by google and I disagree that it was written so as to attack someone. You could have instead deleted the material you found offensive and let other users edit instead of disallowing anyone to create and modify this page. Kindly let others who are aware of this current and important issue create and enlarge this entry. You can search for Madhuri Gupta on Google News to better understand the issue. User:Rohithanda —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

While you may not be aware, a page needn't be specifically designed as an attack--simply being an explicitly or predominantly negative article is enough. If there isn't enough to write a balanced biography, then we don't need a bio at Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

hapless user

Could you help this fellow out with a "standard offer" or something like that? He's been confused with some other user who has tried to look like a sockpuppet even though he hasn't been active for years. [12]15.203.233.79 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he was instructed to email ArbCom. Sounds like a good plan to me. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

WP Essays in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Essays for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Zobo (animal) - request for re-instatement

I came across this word in Barbara Vine's novel "A Dark-Adapted Eye". She is a serious author also writes under the name Ruth Rendell and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. She puts the word in a sentence uttered by an elderly lady so I rather doubt if this is a neologism. The senetnce is "A zobo is a cross between a yak and a cow, we used to see them in India, but Gerry wasn't in the least like one of those" (P126 in Penguin edition).

Incidentally, zo (or dzo) is the Tibetan spelling of something which sounds like the same thing.

Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.3.115 (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be a candidate for Wiktionary, then, rather than Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)