User talk:Jclemens/Archive 13

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Titans
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Chess Titans. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Mahjong
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Microsoft Mahjong. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purble Place
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Purble Place. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Abortion
Hey, Jclemens, I'm trying to understand the interrelationship, if any, between WP:ARBAB (you were one of the drafting arbitrators, which is why I came to you with this inquiry) and WP:AC/DS, where discretionary sanctions are authorized on articles related to abortion. The issue came up in the context of War on Women, whose talk page has a discretionary sanctions notice. Thanks for any help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Does ARBAB help? Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had noticed that. I suppose what confused me is the notice used on the article talk pages. If there's an ArbCom case on an issue, I'm more used to seeing a link to the case rather than just a notation of discretionary sanctions (without even a link to AC/DS). Moving to a different question, if I understand the disposition of the case, the discretionary sanctions allow an admin to impose restrictions on an editor, but not immediately block them. Then, if they violate the restrictions, they may be blocked. Am I interpreting the remedy section correctly?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's how standard discretionary sanctions work--notice must be given, but once an editor has received a notice, they're notified for life. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
I can't have much of a discussion if you don't comment! :) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw the re-revert, but not your starting the BRD process until you pointed it out. My bad. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of God of War: Ascension downloadable content
I know it wasn't raised in the (admittedly horribly attended) AfD, but would you consider amending your close to redirecting the list to God_of_War:_Ascension, thus allowing non-admins to upmerge relevant content to the summary style parent of the deleted list? It seems much more consisted with WP:ATD. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK then. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your offer to mediate. Feel free to comment on current issues at Wikipedia_talk:Four_Award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"phobes tous 'arbicous kai dora pherentes "
A variant of Laocoon's warning in the Iliad with a bit of a pun added re the current TPm arbcom "proposed decision" motion. I have not the foggiest idea what sort of denizens that committee has, but I have a slightly diminished respect for them at this point. (Proper quote is Φοβού τους Δαναούς και δώρα φέροντες  but my Greek is not all that great now) Collect (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which particular part has you most concerned? Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The part where folks (TFD and I) who were just added to the case are lumped into a gloriously splendid example of WP:Tiptibism and Calvinball combined in a Mix-master, and then told that "bickering" would result in being barred from participation (see the talk page). IIRC, I first mentioned this weirdness when I was mentioned at AN/I and unanimously found "not guilty" by the community.  I consider this "proposal" to be an admission of abject failure of the ArbCom to function at all now, and that I regret you are not there as a voice of reason at this point.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See, I honestly tried to wade through that page to see what was going on... and missed it. It's not like I don't know how to *read* ArbCom proceedings, but the fact is that without a specific playbook, it was all too long to read to get at what you assumed I would pick up on immediately.  Sheesh.  As far as my part, I'm not unhappy to not have the responsibility of being on ArbCom now; I do not have the time to begin to participate at that level anymore, and maybe that's just best all around. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
 LGA talk  edits   07:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

 * As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 03:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Wasilla, Alaska
I agree with reverting it. If not for my crappy phone, with its slowness and touchscreen inviting errant rollbacks and other problems, I would have done it already. However, two things. I've noticed that a number of editors appear all too eager to throw around "famous" WRT to Sarah Palin, ignoring that WP:PEACOCK applies here, too. Second, this "fame" in re her association with Wasilla only applies to the past five years' history of a community whose overall history goes back nearly a century. She was only on the radar of the average follower of Alaska politics for about a decade before that, and that was mostly due to a news story about a wedding she presided over at the Walmart in Wasilla while mayor, where even back then she made some of the same sort of remarks she would later become "famous" for. Sounds to me like we're also eager to propagate undue weight here just because it's Sarah Palin we're talking about. Wasilla is probably just about as well-known today for its frequent appearances as a setting in Alaska State Troopers. RadioKAOS –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  06:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem at all with a more nuanced approach to toning down the Palinesque focus of Wasilla's article, I just thought the edit I reverted went waaaay too far in suppressing the connection. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Abusive Mass Deletion of Brutal Murders and Attacks
Some editors are spending a considerable amount of effort trying to get remove articles about particularly brutal or well publicized attacks on persons on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. This will have the effect of removing any mass shooting or terrorist event short of shooting a school or president. Redhanker (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One particular editor User:Transcendence has been very busy on these articles:


 * Articles for deletion/Murder of Timothy Brenton
 * Articles for deletion/Murder of Jennifer Daugherty
 * Articles for deletion/Murder of Andre Marshall
 * Articles for deletion/Murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings
 * Articles for deletion/2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting
 * Articles for deletion/Cupertino quarry shooting
 * Articles for deletion/Frankstown Township shooting
 * Articles for deletion/2012 Azana Spa shootings
 * Articles for deletion/Tacoma Mall shooting
 * Articles for deletion/Heritage High School shooting
 * Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson
 * Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Sunil Tripathi‎

Removed
 * Articles for deletion/2009 Portland nightclub shooting
 * There are no words to describe how incredulous I find this accusation to be am towards this accusation. Transcendence (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are all English words, but I don't think you've strung them together properly... Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, care to point out the error? I'm not aware of any in that sentence. The Stanford parser seems to like it. http://nlp.stanford.edu:8080/corenlp/process. Transcendence (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've heard of incredible accusations, but calling one incredulous is a bit more anthropomorphism than I'd call understandable. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahhh now I see what you mean. Transcendence (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, you got the wrong AfD for Murder of Jennifer Daugherty, it should be Articles for deletion/Murder of Jennifer Daugherty (2nd nomination) Transcendence (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hostile Notice of ANI
It looks like this editor has declared some sort of editing war. He is trying infer that my edits are not balanced, but they always present all points of view rather than censoring out only one point of view. His choice of deletions appears to not promote a neutral point of view, but censoring to show only one side, or not show anything to do with terrorist plots, or media related to the government of a major nation-state Redhanker (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Transcendence (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

and he is deleting more terrorism and politics related articles
 * Nomination of Mashregh News for deletion, an official Iranian government sponsored news agency widely quoted by world news media
 * Nomination of James Seevakumaran for deletion who was found shot while preparing for a college mass shooting terrorist plot
 * Nomination of Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari for deletion, a man sentenced to life in prison for a plot to assassinate a former president of the United States.
 * Nomination of Paul Sheldon Foote for deletion, a well known author and commentator who has appeared on Iran's government sponsored Press TV, Opednews, and Iran's government sponsored FARS news agency.
 * You guys should probably sit down and talk to each other, rather than battling across different pages including my talk page. Trying to recruit people to your side is a problem, with WP:CANVASS.  Trying to delete a whole bunch of articles at once can also be a problem, but people do tend to figure things out.  EVENT is new, but it's also not a negative guideline, so anything that meets GNG can still garner quite a lot of votes for keep except from those who don't understand WP:NOTPAPER. Neither is the end of the world. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Tacoma Mall Shooting
I noticed that you've already helped out with the Tacoma Mall Shooting but you were probably unaware that this was a part of a pattern of an obviously abusive AFD campaign, as he had done a series of these. It would be as if these were related terrorist events and someone who had knowledge that they were connected wanted to remove any documentation of these events knowing that there is no penalty for at least trying to find which AFDs would not be contested. It is all too easy to delete articles for which there is little traffic and nobody notices. What would you recommend to be the proper way to bring this to the attention of the community or an appropriate admin? There seems to be a recurring pattern of any article that covers a terrorist event, or an event that is similar to a terrorist attack is soon nominated for deletion no matter how much international coverage it gets. This was the only other editor I contacted, so it's not a case of CANVASS, and it is something that needs the help of more than one editor as there are a few editors that seem to work with each other to help these AFD's along

Could you help restore the Portland shooting article? Redhanker (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Portland 2013!
-- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ave atque Vale
You might notice the wisdom of ArbCom does not impress me currently, so I am "outta here" except for matters of substantial concern. I shall, of course, note their "wisdom" in any ACE2013 essay, and invite others to do so as well. Please remove grave-dancers from my page, as I expect two of them . With deepest respect, Collect (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have more insight into ArbCom than most, but won't offer my thoughts on that. Suffice it to say that the uneven and capricious administration of sanctions around here (and not just by arbcom) has driven away many great contributors who simply don't make time to fight in meta-topics. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your personal attack at Articles for deletion/Tharizdun
I'm not a "reformed sockpuppetteer". Per WP:AVOIDYOU, "discussion of a user's conduct or history" outside of the proper venue is a personal attack, and AfDs are made exclusively to discuss whether or not a topic deserves a stand-alone article, not to discuss user conduct. Besides that, I will not allow you to propagate gratuitous lies about me, so remove that part of your comment, and leave TTN alone. If you think you have reasons to complain, go to WP:ANI.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you saying you haven't reformed? That would be a game-changing admission, if that's really what you meant to say. Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're of course free to open a WP:SPI (and also to face the consequence of an abusive request). You can stop your play on word, I'm not a sockpuppetter, period, and I ask you to remove that personal attack from your comment.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Folken, it's pretty hard to compliment you when you respond to my praise so negatively: "reformed" is my favorable interpretation, and "sockpuppetteer" is objective reality. In addition to the evidence brought up at the RFC regarding your Italian activities, there's also Requests for checkuser/Case/Folken de Fanel. So, yes, you are a sockpuppetteer, and in my estimation, a reformed one, and that should not be interpreted as a personal attack, since I'm complimenting you on your learning your lesson, just like, for example, you haven't been blocked for edit warring any time recently.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgetting to log in does not qualify as "sockpuppetteering", and en.wiki has no jurisdiction whatsoever on other languages wiki, so calling me a "sockpuppetteer" here, whether reformed or not, is a lie and a personal attack. Whatever your wording or your intentions, per WP:AVOIDYOU, discussing past/imaginary conduct at AfD is a personal attack, and I ask you again, and will keep asking you, to remove it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No personal attack was made, so nothing will be changed. Your reading of WP:AVOIDYOU ignores the "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum" clause, and I encourage you to review TTN's history of AfD participation, especially with regards to fictional elements. Note further that calling my statement a lie is itself a personal attack under the definition you propose I should follow. You should really consider changing your excessive focus on perceived slights, and the resultant confrontational behavior. I seem to recall that you've made a dig at me over the "not a wikipedian" statement, so you really don't have any moral high ground here--either what I'm saying is fine, or what you said elsewhere was not. I don't make a big deal about that, either, because it was the past, really happened, and we all learn and move on.  You've got a TON more past than I do, spread across what, five or six Wikis, and on two of which you remain indefinitely blocked, right?  Learn to own it--that's the benefit of the 'reformed' adjective: be able to say "I did it, I made that mistake, and I learned from it".  I don't recall you ever making such a statement.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum" means that "discussion of a user's conduct" is a personal attack when done in the inappropriate forum. AfD isn't a forum for user conduct discussion, therefore discussing user conduct there is a personal attack. That you've written false information about me has only aggravated the aggression. I'm not a sockpupetteer, period. Per WP:AVOIDYOU, this is an appropriate forum to discuss your conduct and that's what I am doing, just as I mentioned the "not a wikipedian" incident over at RFC/U, an appropriate forum for conduct discussion.
 * You have been harassing me for years, calling me "clueless", "mentally ill", "sockpuppetteer" and numerous other insults at various AfDs and talk pages, yet I do not remember you ever stating "I did it, I made that mistake, and I learned from it". I'm merely offering you the chance to finally say it and repent, and I want the harassment to stop.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The fundamental logic error in your first sentence speaks volumes for why you ever thought that I called you mentally ill in the first place. I'm sorry you feel harassed, I really am, but the fact is, I refuse to be bullied by your self-serving interpretations of policies. Nor will I be bullied by you stating the same incorrect or untrue things again and again and pretend that your repetition makes them any more true.  In the interest of non-repetition, I won't restate my refutations. Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no logic error and you did call me mentally ill. As usual you refuse to face the consequence of your actions and you resume your old game of trying to turn the table on who is the victim here, just for the sake of having the last word. As I said, I was only offering you an honorable way out, but since you refuse to drop the stick, this will be become yet another evidence for the arbcom case I told you I was building against you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You want an expression of regret? Fine: I regret that I ever paid you the compliment of calling you a reformed sockpuppetteer. Jclemens (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

DRV for Poonam Pandey
Hi! As you were one of the keep voters of this article at the AfD, i thought of informing you of the discussion started at Deletion review/Log/2013 September 14. Good day! §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you taking this to DRV when the most recent deletion rationale was based on the banned status of the creator? Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Apology
I am sorry that I got upset and said things that you apparently construed as potentially being a legal threat. That was absolutely was never my intention. I hope that my actions in the future will never cause you to have any such concerns again. And I hope that I never allow your actions inspire me to say something that offends you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, although reading it, I suspect a clarification is in order. I did not interpret your use of the word 'slander' to mean that you intended to sue anyone.  Rather, it's pretty clear that anytime such legally-burdened words (slander, libel, defamation, etc.) are used, a more appropriate word--sans legal baggage--should be used. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * but you find the baggage associated with making unsupported insinuations about other editors acceptable? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I still have no idea what you purport to be talking about. Calling a sockpuppetteer a sockpuppetteer is never a personal attack, and I find your repeated assertion that it is somehow improper puzzling. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * you have been insinuating sockpuppetry long before you had any evidence and in forums other than where suspicions of sockpuppetry belong and you continue to insinuate sockpuppetry upon EN Wikipedia, for which you have no evidence, or at least none that you have produced in the proper forum. So, yes, I consider that use of loaded language and particularly the repeated self defense of such conduct unbecoming of an admin, who is supposed to represent the best practices.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your statement is untrue on every single level. The real question is why I continue to try and explain myself to you, in light of such statements. Regardless, since you continue your baseless accusations of wrongdoing, you've demonstrated that any efforts of mine to explain things are misguided and unhelpful, and so I will cease. Were there such a thing, you would clearly be entitled to a 'defender of the sockpuppetteer' barnstar.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Calling a spade a spade is not uncivil", said some Wikipedian once.  Oh, wait--that was YOU just a few hours ago! I've done nothing more, so I thank you for your endorsement of my calling a spade a spade. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you consider calling bits of trivia "cruft" anywhere near the same plane of incivility as following someone around saying "you were a socking on another server. you were socking on another server." then i have serious doubts about your WP:COMPETENCY. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any illusions that your personal content opinions have as much objectivity as the conduct findings of other admins... Well, we'll just leave it at that, then. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, so Jclemens is personally attacking me on other users' talk pages, now ? I am not a sockpuppeteer and will not tolerate to be called as such. Please remove the personal attacks you wrote about me on TRPOD's talk page.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're the one who objected to reformed, so sockpuppetteer it is. If you withdraw your objection to the adjective, I will be perfectly happy to return to calling you a reformed sockpuppetteer, since both en.wiki and it.wiki admins have found that you acted in such a manner, but neither complaints are at all recent. And the topic would have been dead a long time ago, but TRPoD brought it back up, so you might want to complain to him about it. If you would like to exercise your WP:RTV or a WP:CLEANSTART, those would both be ways for you to drop the label, since you're not currently under any sanctions, but beware WP:SCRUTINY if you do. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realize that your insistance on calling me a "sockpupeteer" simply because I forgot to log in once will be seen as a personal attack, aggravated by the fact that as an admin you really should know better, by the same admins you mention. It.wiki is not En.wiki, you have no business talking about different websites. I don't see why I would use a cleanstart, but I reiterate my statement that you only have to apologize for your history of personal attacks against me to end the matter. There's only so much times you can refuse an outstretched hand. I'm not a sockpupeteer, "reformed" or not, and I forbid you (because I've already asked) to call me as such again.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You would do good to read that Checkuser request, in that since you were found to have used two different IP addresses to reinsert the same harassment about which you had previously been warned, the most charitable thing that can be said about your above statement is that your recollection seems to differ from the official record. Note that in the associated block, User:Avraham, who is both still active and a very senior and respected functionary, chose to block not for sockpuppetry, but for personal attacks and harassment.  As for the rest of your statement, I think an appropriate response to it would be unhelpful given the correctable inaccuracies with which you open. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If I was really trying to hide my identity, I would not have referred to myself as "I" in the incriminated diff. I forgot to log in, and you rightly point out I wasn't blocked for sockpuppettry in this incident. It is thus not up to you to rewrite history so that you can continue to wikihound me on new grounds (I guess that keeping to call me "mentally ill" would have attracted too much attention in the long run).Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Never happened, not once, despite your previously posting a selectively edited version of my comment designed to make it look as if I did... and now you are clearly into personal attack territory. If you want to let the matter drop, be my guest, but continuing to post inflammatory accusations serves no purpose that I can see. Jclemens (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying (example) "User X looks like he is maybe an asshole" is as much offensive as saying "User X is an asshole", adding a hypocritical layer of speculation doesn't allow to game WP:NPA, and the underlying insult is still there. And so I maintain that you called me "mentally ill". You disagree ? Then you're free to post the diff in question at WP:ANI and let people there decide whether it's more a case of me "selectively editing" your comment or you being outright uncivil. Cheers.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can maintain anything you want. Like your summation of the 2009 checkuser request... reality differs. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't, however, continue to harass and lie about me.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We are agreed, except on the 'continue' bit. I've never harassed you and never lied about you, and I certainly don't plan to start now. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For those coming to this discussion based on the recent ANI, please don't confuse TRPoD as a neutral party. Note that I warned him twice yesterday for his editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * baseless warnings for removing bad "sources", tagging articles that have only primary sources with tags for having only primary sources and therefore notability issues, and removal of content that was not about the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that you disagree with the warnings does not make you a neutral party, and your non-neutrality was all I asserted. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and that complaint was archived without a single administrator finding a single aspect of the original (casting aspersions) or subsequent (bringing up old misbehaviors, calling IP-based harassing editing sockpuppetry) complaints having any merit. The only editor who actually said anything supportive of the complaint is not uninvolved, having previously offered a view in the Request for Comment on Folken de Fanel's behavior, which was also endorsed by The Red Pen of Doom. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you choose to read that as an invitation for you to join the ranks of those who are not a wikipedian there is obviously nothing that I can say that will change your mind. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The archival doesn't mean anything either way. You're free to convince yourself you've won (and if that's what it takes for you to drop the stick, then I gladly encourage you to do so), but as TRPOD said, do not take it as an encouragement to harass me further because you've had your fun long enough, and the next time you lapse into personal attacks against me you will be reported again.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if either of you thought I was addressing you; I was not. I was merely including a reference to the end of the matter for me to find easier in my own talk page should I need to in the future. But, since you both decided to respond, I'll respond to your posts.
 * TRPoD, you seem to have a fascination with a phrase that I uttered a year ago and which was obviously unhelpful and counterproductive then. I find no good reason for your doing so, and the irony of you bringing up something irrelevant in the context of complaining about me bringing up something irrelevant is left as an exercise for the reader.
 * Folken, your inability to concede defeat in the face of zero support for your statements is becoming legendary: AfD, DRV, and now ANI. Nevertheless, we absolutely can see several things from the actionless archival, which can all be summed up in one sentence: No position put forth either by you or TRPoD had a single administrator endorse it, even though the complaint remained on the page for multiple days.
 * So, your collective attempt to silence my occasional reminders of Folken's past misdeeds has failed. You are encouraged to let the matter drop. No further replies on the topic are welcome on this page, since it has been settled by the community without any finding of wrongdoing. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Delta Pi Delta
Jclemens, Delta Pi Delta was marked for proposed deletion on 6 October 2010 and was ultimately deleted because the proposal expired with no objections. This article is about a (the only) fraternity at Mount Olive College, and passes the notability test required for such organizations. Can you please revert the deletion so that I can add it to my sandbox and provide proper sources so that it is not deleted in the future? Thanks much, Cc09091986 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC).
 * Done. Improve away! Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Death of Delbert Belton
Could you put a copy of deleted article into my user space? There seems to be a lot of effort to delete articles on incidents that look like terrorist-style attacks with no motive other than to cause death and mayhem no matter how much interest they generate in the media, including articles on Al Shabab atrocities and industrial accidents in China. Belton generated a ton of controversy on the heels of the Treyvon case Redhanker (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, now at User:Redhanker/Death of Delbert Belton. Please make sure to add at least one, preferably more, reliable source(s) prior to moving it back to mainspace to avoid a G4 deletion.  Note that I've also cleaned up the categories, so you'll need to put those back when you're ready to mainspace it, too. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

stalking
,, , , , , etc. ad nauseum (I only use the last week -- this has now been going on for four years) I believe may quite reach the epitome of persobal attack/stalking. I think you might look into that editor's seeming predisposition to comment on my every act. I consider four years long enough to abide such conduct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC) shows his further intent to stalk -- by announcing that he is on "wikistrike" etc. I rather think the evidence of his stalking my edits is irruftable, as is his stated intent to seek my departure from Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So what would you like me to do about him? Indef him? I doubt it would stick.  Has he been warned?  Have you tried previous dispute resolution venues? Are there discretionary sanctions that applies? Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Many times over four years -- his "parting shot" shows his position quite well. He at least blanked his UT and User pages which had masses of attacks on me and snark by the carload. I would like you to be aware of it as I am quite sick and tired of his behavior, and find it to be an exemplar of what is allowed on Wikipedia unimpeded.  I would ask, however, that his current snark-attack be redacted, as I feel it is "over the top" indeed by any standards.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing left on his user or talk page mentions you by name, and I don't see anything else in his recent contribs that's obvious. Can you be more specific as to what you think should be gone? Jclemens (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you actually do any Wikisearch for my words which he so nicely refers to on his UT page still -- including his own snarky "Quake in your boots, fellow Wikipedians! I hereby announce that I am on wikistrike" which I daresay is clear to anyone who has followed his several hundred snarky comments about me and following me to a substantial number of discussions fully unrelated to any of his article edits . Um -- try seeing precisely how many Wikipedians have used that particular word, and assure me that it is coincidence . Collect (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Randy Gage
Hi, Please remove protection from Randy Gage, I have a new content for it. I made same request to Joe Decker. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't protect it, so I'll defer to the protecting admin's take on it, which I agree with anyways: given that it's been a problem in the past, feel free to create a draft first including the new information. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jclemens; please, continue to follow my discussion with the admin who protected it—Joe Decker. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Please, look at my discussion with Joe Decker and help review Randy Gage (prosperity coach). I want protection removed from Randy Gage, so I can move Randy Gage (prosperity coach) there. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * fwiw, I speedy deleted the new article as G11, and protected the new title also.  DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the new article a blatant or unambiguous advertising or promotion?! (See talk with DGG) —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Accusing DGG of abuse of administrative privileges is not a particularly good way to score points with me. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

May be I let my emotions get the better of me there, sorry, but is the last revision before deletion a blatant or unambiguous advertising or promotion which cannot be kept?! Joe Decker was too busy then to guide me through what needs to be done, so expected that DGG should have provided a guide, but he slammed a speedy. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-athon!
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Valid reason to nominate for deletion?
Hello, Jclemens. I'd like your opinion on the reason given for an AfD, namely Articles_for_deletion/Content_audit. I know you look at lots of AfDs and that you tend to be an inclusionist. The reason for deleting Content audit seems to be "the sources could be better". For my own personal information, I'd like to know if, in your opinion, that's a valid reason to nominate an AfD. (As I said at the AfD, I looked at WP:DELETE and I don't see this rationale on the list of 14 reasons to delete). I recognize that Yoninah is one heckuvan editor and his expertise should not be dismissed lightly. On the other hand, neither should yours! I have already voted "Keep" and commented at the AfD, and the trend is toward "Keep". Thank you for your time. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: it was closed as Keep, but I'd still appreciate your opinion. Thanks. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea of 'not based on reliable sources' is a reasonable reason to ask for deletion, but there's a little bit of a contradiction, in that 2-3 RS sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability, but then an article should not be primarily based on non-RS'es. So you can get to a point where someone can argue for deletion because you've added too much "unacceptably sourced" material, even when some of that stuff meets WP:SELFPUB. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jclemens; I understand it better now (but not as well as I would understand it if I were a deletionist—my prejudices sometimes cloud my understanding). --96.231.113.61 (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Response
I've restored the ten pages in question. I've left a message for the editor who expressed an interest in improving those articles, requesting that they be improved within ten days, or I'll take them to AfD.

There is respect for process, and then there is worship of process. Sometimes the line between the two can be a little blurry; ultimately, however, I do not approve of glorifying process for its own sake. Bureaucracy is meant to be a tool, not a master. There's a difference between guidelines and rules.

I make mistakes on occasion, and I'm certainly willing to apologize when that happens — and in fact, I have done so many times before. I utterly reject your premise, however, that it was a mistake for me to differ from the consensus which subsequently emerged.

On a tangentially related point, how much newpage patrol do you do? DS (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Help With Radiofrequency Ablation as an Obstructive Sleep Apnea Treatment
I'm new to creating articles and have had a hard time researching/finding people in charge to provide advice and insight on how to create articles and publish correctly. I am wondering if you could provide any insight on what I've done so far, the usual review process, and when I should submit my page for approval? As mentioned before, very new to this. Thanks for your time! DrDillard (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Side note: I initially replied to this on the wrong talk page--you've certainly gotten around a bit) Without looking at the sources themselves, it certainly seems OK on a first blush. You could stand to improve the formatting, and there's obviously inline comments in your draft, but you seem to have the gist of it down: Find a topic without an article, write about it, citing reliable sources in the process. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for time and advice. Yeah, I still need to find some specific sources for those inline comments. I'll be sure to look up some articles on formatting before submitting the article for approval. Thanks again! DrDillard (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Kathryn Hamm
In regards to this DRV is there a way I can get a copy of the article from the last deleted version? It took me a while to format all the refs and stuff and I could really benefit. I was hoping that the DRV process would restore it, but new events have transpired: a red link user recreated the article in bad shape, another user speedied, another user declined the speedy, now it sits in bad shape and I still don't have access to the version I was working on earlier from the last speedy.. sigh. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done and noted. I would encourage you to NOT work on the article any more until and unless the DRV is closed allowing it to continue to exist, but I would encourage you to post a link to your best last version in the DRV so other editors can see the state of the article when the G4 was applied. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball (anime)
As you participated in the above AFD, as per the close I have opened up a proper merge discussion at Talk:Dragon Ball and you are welcome to participate.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Memo
I left you a message by Memoserv on IRC. Please respond ASAP; thank you. DS (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I logged into IRC and have seen nothing yet. I'll keep an eye out, but I've never been contacted via Memoserv before.  'Email this user' works for me. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Plane (Magic: The Gathering) AfD
Have you had a chance to check the correctness of at WP:Articles for deletion/Plane (Magic: The Gathering)? Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that to be correct. It's moot, however, since the article was redirected rather than deleted, and the attribution chain is kept in the article history somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your note is not correct, and it has already misled the AfD's closer. with the hope that you would identify your error in the process. I thought that you might be more receptive if you reevaluated it on your own before having my explanation told to you. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifics? Any text added to any wikipedia page must have the original source cited. That is easiest accomplished by a link to the original diff which identifies the author.  As long as there's a redirect chain with a non-deleted history, that's met.  If A was merged to B, and then content merged from B to C that originally came from A, deleting B breaks that chain.  Where's the logic error? Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the first time that you've mentioned another merge target C. If you mean a specific page, please provide it and the relevant diff. Were you aware of this destination article during the AfD, and if so, why did you omit it? ( to Magic: The Gathering storylines by User:TTN was the result of the AfD and doesn't count.)
 * I will break down my interpretation of your note: "As far as I understand our licensing rules, deletion is not a legal option, since other articles (e.g. ) have been merged into this one, unless all such other merged articles are deleted first and no content is retained."
 * A1, ..., An have been merged into B
 * A1 = Ravnica (plane)
 * B = Plane (Magic: The Gathering)
 * All A1, ..., An must be deleted before B can be deleted.
 * "all such other merged articles" is a backreference to "other articles ... have been merged"
 * Mercadia and Kamigawa are also A source articles identified by afd-merged-from at the top of Talk:Plane (Magic: The Gathering). They were merged by User:Missilepenguin after their AfDs.
 * In addition to checking the talk page, I skimmed the page history and found no indications of merging or copying from Plane (Magic: The Gathering). —clarified Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Flatscan (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the policy basis of "Any text added to any wikipedia page must have the original source cited."? A search returns WP:Citing sources (guideline), WP:Attribution (proposed/failed merger of policies WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research), and WP:Verifiability itself. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not policy, it's licensing. You know, above the 'save page' button where it says "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." (emphasis mine).  Thus, it's not a matter of policy, but legality--if we end up with text from any deleted page without properly attributing such contributions, we would be in violation of the license under which text was originally contributed to Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't clear that you meant reuse. Relevant pages/sections include Terms of Use, WP:Copyrights, and WP:Copyrights. Your new comment is correct, but it is not consistent with your original note. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And "misled"? You make it sound like it made a material impact on the close, when in fact there was not a single delete opinion other than the nominator. Rereading Hobit's note though, it appears that people aren't clear that the article in question had already had a lot of content merged into it, so it's not a two-article problem, but the middle of a three-article problems, as I outlined above. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * mentioned that "Jclemens has a valid point about licensing". Since your note is not correct and your point is not valid, I stand by my wording. Flatscan (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you intend to respond? You haven't replied to. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW
yet again. My talk page at the very top tells folks not to redact the edits of others, which is a matter of principle IMHO. Collect (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, until you present all of these together in one history of inappropriate action, no one of these issues is going to be enough to get the user sanctioned, right? He's playing the game where any sanction will immediately attract the 'stick it to The Man' crowd who will argue it's admin abuse, unfounded, etc. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Guess so -- I now have a list of over a hundred such snarky remarks from him. I think he has a fixation problem at this point.  Collect (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you have a choice: Put them together and shoot for a sanction, or just take a deep breath and continue ignoring it. And by that, I mean actually putting it out of your mind and moving on, rather than just not taking any action.  One of the things I find all the time on Wikipedia is that someone will say something rude to/about me, and I'll forget that they've done so before.  There are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are jerks at least some portion of the time, but I find that unless people have gone out of their way to act malevolently towards me, it tends to not make much of a lasting impression.  But I'd be lying if I said there weren't a few names that I will never forget, so I understand if you can't either. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well he definitely noted this post -- I feel like a mosquito is following me around . BTW, I do not recall ever calling any editor a "bastard" as he would have it ... I rather think this is a swan song on his part as he now swears he will not follow me around (though it also appears he intends to ask an admin to follow me, from his post?) Cheers -- all I can think of is him singing the old "I'll Be Watching You" song from the Police as je monitors my every edit. Collect (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

T: template redirects
Hi, you participated in Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29, some of which I have relisted at Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November_18. Please come along and share your thoughts .. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 15:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Mateo Roskam - restore?
Hi!

I see that you deleted, quite rightly and deservedly, the article for Mateo Roskam, a Croatian football (soccer) player, in 2009. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mateo_Roskam

He has, however, become eligible for inclusion in 2013, playing for a club in a fully professional league (Slaven Belupo in the Croatian Prva HNL) -> http://www.transfermarkt.com/en/mateo-roskam/leistungsdaten/spieler_46790.html (for example), and I thought it would be cool if the article was restored - I'd update it immediately with relevant data.

Thank you for your help!

Zlopseto (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mateo Roskam has been restored. Please improve it with the new information.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on an old AfD
Hi, this discussion concerns a remark you made in an AfD that I closed almost a month ago. Just a heads up. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't--Flatscan just wants to believe it does. Flatscan has a habit of 1) continuing closed discussions, 2) at a glacial (one reply per week or so) page, and 3) assuming that when people get tired of talking to him, that that constitutes proof that he is correct.  I'd encourage you to just ignore his post entirely as if it were a summary judgement issue: even if his assertions were true, there's no outcome that would be changed by accepting them.  Thus, discussing the merits of his arguments is entirely elective, and something I do not plan to engage in. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

categorizations
I think the edit history may be mentioned without further comment? I can not raise anything specific even at BLP/N as I understand it, hence and only am noting the aggregate contribution history. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
{| |}

IAR a DRV?
That Earl DRV saw 6 endorses and 4 overturns, you can't just toss that aside in favor of your own opinion on the matter. We don't promote people to the admin corps to make decisions for us, we promote you to act according to the consensus of the community. Or in the brief 2 days this DRV was open, a lack thereof. This will get ugly if you don't have a change of heart; re-delete the article and allow the DRV to run its course, please. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing the request so politely, Tarc. I know we've disagreed over deletion matters over the years, but I do not take this action lightly.  The point of IAR is to improve the encyclopedia when the 'rules' answer is clearly the wrong one, and that's precisely why I've done what I've did.  Mr. Earl has been covered in numerous reliable sources over the years, and not in an unreasonably negative or exploitative way.  His BLP is quite well sourced and reflects NPOV within the scope of what I saw when personally verifying the contents of the reliable sources. Its retention is completely in line with our pillars, and its absence, even if temporary, lessens the encyclopedia.  It's not a debatable matter, like fictional elements are, where good people can differ.  His life and arrest record are a recurrent news matter, covered in the highest quality of news sources.  The interpretations of various BLP or EVENT policies that would support a deletion are sufficiently without merit that the IAR close and restoration were justified.  I get that some people want to make BLP trump encyclopedic coverage, but that's not a pillar-supported priority.  Jimbo's take on BLP is that we have to get it right--but sometimes, getting it right means reporting the negative things that RS'es do. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but that isn't a valid rationale to toss a dozen-odd editor's input and sub in your own; you should have entered in a vote/opinion to overturn. I kinda swore off ANI and haven't even taken a peek at it in months, but I think this action may need to go up for review. Tarc (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I really think you should re-open the DRV and let it run the full seven days. Your rationale would make a fine contribution to the DRV, but I'm very uncomfortable with shutting down the discussion somewhat prematurely like this. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You both realize that the status quo before I corrected things was that Mr. Earl's name redirected to a completely different and entirely unrelated individual. That both sends readers to a completely different result, but it also denies Mr. Earl the publicity of Wikipedia, which might actually hamper Mr. Earl from receiving compassionate contributions, which are highest in the United States during this season of the year. In fact, the possibility of harm to Mr. Earl is at least as significant that I believe that in addition to my initially stated rationale, special BLP measures apply per WP:BLPBAN. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I would hate to stop someone from having a happy holiday season--that's certainly not my intent. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it wasn't your intent--while I have taken issue with the arguments, closing, and now with one other admin's conduct, IAR closure is designed to be a panic-stop and call to reexamine the outcome in the light of the pillars. Doing so when I bore any personal animus against any other involved party would undermine the appropriateness of my action, and I continue to AGF that while people may be wrong, I have seen no evidence that anyone is intentionally misbehaving. Mr. Earl is not a well human being, but the fact is that whatever harm might befall him from Schadenfreude is far outbalanced by the fact that only public attention on the poor man's plight will get him any help--his notoriety, as covered by plenty of reliable sources over many years and reflected in his Wikipedia article, is the only way Wikipedia can actually help him, by drawing interested persons to his aide. This is exactly the opposite of the BLP arguments which were brought forward and uncritically endorsed.  We're so used to BLP being used as an excuse to delete things, that in this process, no one ever stopped and said "Wait, could this actually be helping Mr. Earl?" Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm placing it in the hands of the ANI folk to decide. I just can't abide unilateral moves like this. Tarc (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:5P IAR is a pillar, and is of necessity and by definition unilateral. Feel free to seek to change it if you like. Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I've edited Tarc's comment above to Wikilink the ANI discussion he opened, for ease of navigation. Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c): Hi Jclemens. I have undone your out-of-process close of the DRV. I understand that you are passionate about this, but it is not appropriate to short-circuit our review processes in such a manner. If you are right that my AfD close was incorrect, I am sure you will be able to persuade the other DRV participants of that, and a neutral editor will close the DRV accordingly. Please note that I have not re-deleted the article (and I will not) because, as you say, that could be interpreted as wheel-warring. At the end of the 7 days, the closer will either re-delete or keep restored the article as appropriate. Let's just both be patient and let the DRV run its course. 28bytes (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're going to call my actions out-of-process, but then undo a close of a DRV on an AfD that you decided? That's... stunningly inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on here, but I think your use of BLP special enforcement is quite dubious. My understanding is that BLP spec is to ensure that articles are compliant with the BLP policy. And there is nothing in there about keeping an article because the presence of the article might earn the subject money. In fact I think this is somewhat opposed to Wikipedia's purpose, which is to document notable people/companies/etc not a place to promote people. Also WP:Deletion review states that articles should be blanked, rather than the decision be completely reversed. Anyway, interested in your reasoning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not documenting a notable person deprives them of exposure; my reasoning clearly asserts that is directly harmful to do so in this case. This is not about promoting anyone, and certainly not about inappropriate puffery intended to portray the subject in an undeservedly positive light.  No one said anything about Mr. Earl "earning" money--I spoke specifically to charitable contributions, which peak at this time of the year, and which can reasonably expected to be curtailed if his Wikipedia article is suppressed. The article in question was not "temporarily" undeleted--I restored it when I closed the DRV.  An involved administrator has reopened the DRV, but wisely chose not to re-delete the article as that would have been wheel warring.  You are entitled to disagree with the appropriateness of BLP enforcement... but BLP enforcement is not subject to consensus. Jclemens (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The rationale is still your opinion that the person is notable, which will be promoting him (in terms of his online profile) in order for him to receive donations. So in 5 or so days when the DRV is closed, if it's closed as endorse deletion, will you withdraw the special enforcement and allow the consensus to take precedence? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All BLP special enforcement is opinion, under your criterion, and essentially on the same footing; that's why admins are entrusted with it, because we're expected to have the policy knowledge and track record to do it appropriately. The thing that I've changed by invoking special BLP enforcement, however, is that in order for the article to be re-deleted, a consensus to delete must exist--that is, we're no longer talking about a no-consensus close endorsing an AfD deletion. I guess it could technically do that, but then we have the AfD close restored by a DRV no consensus, but the special BLP enforcement left in place by that same no-consensus, which trumps the AfD.  All this assumes that 28bytes' out-of-process reopening of my IAR close isn't undone as a violation of WP:INVOLVED, of course.  Suffice it to say that there may be plenty more outcomes that I can't foresee, and speculating further is probably unhelpful. Jclemens (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding, "not documenting a notable person deprives them of exposure...", couldn't that effectively short-circuit any attempt to delete a BLP article up for discussion? Look at this from outside of the point-of-view of just the Henry Earl article, you need to consider the consequences of the things you do via the admin bit, as they can be cited as precedent by others down the road.  I'd also consider the fact that your words could be construed as a support of the Wikipedia being used as an advertising/PR/promotional platform for article subjects.   Is that why we're doing all this? Tarc (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It could indeed, Tarc, which is why I think the fact that Mr. Earl has been documented multiple times, over a decade or so, in US and international reliable sources. That is why this case is different than the run-of-the-mill promotional articles: because our normal notability rules would have deleted him if it were otherwise, and would delete the hypothetical other article you posit. Jclemens (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Warning
Do not do this again. Your invocation of BLPBAN has been found to be frivolous, by a clear and active consensus of uninvolved observers at WP:ANI, and I – as an uninvolved administrator – have therefore formally marked it as overturned. As your BLP invocation has been found invalid, you are at this point neither entitled to hand out further "warnings" in this matter, nor to edit-war and invoke 3RR exemptions on the article. If you continue to edit against consensus in this matter, it will very likely end in you being blocked, and if you continue to abuse your admin role in the same way, it will end in your being desysoped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've cross-warned you at your talk page. ANI hasn't "found" anything, despite your insistence that it do. Regardless, thanks for striking, rather than deleting, the BLPBAN log entry you objected to.  I'd really rather no one block anyone here, and but the fact is my assertion of harm on the basis of deletion or blanking is real, material, not frivolous, and not raised in bad faith.  Regardless, I have to go to work, so I'm certainly not going to be doing anything to the article in the next ~12+ hours--I can't stop you from blanking it again, but I can tell you that you're wrong on both policy and ethical bases if you do so.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Saying that deletion would "deprive him of charitable contributions" means that you want it kept to advertise his charity. Violation of WP:CONSENSUS (your supervote), WP:SOAPBOX and probably WP:COI. Dark Sun (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for 24 hours due to a growing consensus on ANI that your recent actions have constituted a disruprive abuse of adminship, as well as a seeming failure to admit the problem and a seeming likelihood for the problem to reoccur. A discussion is underway regarding your suitability to continue to hold admin privileges. If you wish to be unblocked to take part in this discussion, this can be done provided you agree not to return to the issues which have caused this block. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While I was the one that filed the initial ANI, I have to ask if this is really necessary at this point? Jclemens said he was going to be offline for ~12 hours, and we're 3 hours into that now.  What is the block preventing? Tarc (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Further. Whether some agree or not JCelemens is reasonable and is listening and is responding in a calm and thoughtful way. This block appears to be punitive .(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC))
 * Not punitive, he's been editing disruptively, this is preventative. Dark Sun (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Preventative of what? What action(s) do you believe Jclemens would have done during the 24 hour period of this block had he not been blocked? WJBscribe (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * More supervoting, owning and advertising. Dark Sun (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please use your main account for unblock requests. Dark Sun (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea if he's on a shared PC (which I assume he is). Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Dark Sun, you'll note that 1) I said quite clearly I was going to work, 2) Noted above that I was logged in from work and 3) per my long-standing note at User:Jclemens-public "I also use this account regardless of SSL status when I'm logged into a computer that isn't exclusively mine."  While it might not be obvious to all, any administrator can unblock their own account at any time, so logging on to a not-exclusively-mine computer to respond to an unblock request would have unnecessarily put the project at risk of actual disruption.
 * As far as the conditions TParis requests... I am ambivalent. The block was not preventative, and the conditions would not be preventative either.  Well, I suppose the block does actually prevent me from engaging in the ANI thread... but the idea that I would be disrupting the encyclopedia if not blocked or restricted is ridiculous. If you really think, TParis, that you need that assurance from me to even consider (your word) an unblock, then you have no business granting me one. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The sanction you invoked on prevention of blanking is ownership and it was not official. Please stop insisting it should be kept as a soapbox. Dark Sun (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Jclemens....I urge you to live out the block and not file an arbcom case.--MONGO 21:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * MONGO is offering you some sound advice. I don't think the block was warranted, but at this point I think you should sleep on it and reassess things tomorrow – by then the block will be near to expiration anyway. I have a lot of respect for the contributions of both you and 28bytes (and for that matter a number of others involved in the DRV and ANI discussions), but I think taking this to ARBCOM would be detrimental to Wikipedia, and I think there could be a lot of collateral damage. There are a number of editors involved who aren't looking too good in my eyes... I realize it may be a matter of principle for you (in which case I wish you luck), but I sincerely urge you to be "the bigger man", let it go if you can, and just participate in the DRV discussion. I truly think it would be best for the project. Mojoworker (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To give a resolution to your unblock request: on hold and referred to the current discussion on ANI as to whether you should remain blocked. NW ( Talk ) 22:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Unbolded "On hold" as you've !voted in the dispute and I'm going to give an uninvolved admin action in a moment.--v/r - TP 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey man, not sure what exactly is going on, but +1 moral support to you. Looks like a lot of drama, a lot of it probably left over from other times people have gotten into it with you, so hopefully there will be less drama soon instead of more. BOZ (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've commented on your behalf - it is clear that there is some very wrong thinking going on for deleting articles. You could make an excellent case that it is anything but "WP:DECENCY", as one voter put it, to delete the article to "be nice" to someone who has spent his life being treated anything but nicely.  However, that does not mean that there is merit to the notion of using BLP to preserve an article.  BLP is not supposed to be a "let's change this article any way we can to be nice", even if it is usually interpreted that way.  It is supposed to be a call for good sourcing and close adherence to policy.  It would create an untenable position if we had a badly-sourced article, but deleting it would 'harm' the subject.  Do we accept bad BLP writing, or risk damaging someone by our deletion?  Well, that's a nonissue - we have no duty to the subject to have an article about him.  Our duty is to the audience to allow people to work together to produce as many articles as they can with any kind of verifiability. Wnt (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Closed the "Jclemens restriction" thread
I have closed the proposal that you banned from using your administrative tools where it concerns the policy on biographies of living persons as no consensus. Some opposed the sanction outright, others believe that this should an ArbCom issue.

Just speaking as an observing editor with an eight year track record (which includes sparking off a controversy by blocking Tony Sidaway over a DRV dispute several years ago), I don't think that your interpretation of the BLP enforcement policy will gain any more traction on ArbCom than it did in the community. Using IAR in this manner is also rather implausible. While "no firm rules" is indeed a pillar, it is not one that can be used as a club to knock down other pillars (in this case, people may think you have been swinging at the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" pillar). If the issue is not resolved, and the case winds up with ArbCom, I don't think they would be sympathetic to you here. Since I would hate to lose you as an administrator and editor, I recommend that you commit not to do something like this again. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As clarification: You are not just speaking "as an observing editor", as the closer of a discussion on ANI regarding this editor, you are very much an involved editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, but I think I understand the differences between the two paragraphs fine. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So.... Thanks? It's worth noting that I was never notified of the discussion, nor invited to speak in my own defense, but that's kind of moot because I was technically prohibited from doing so for the entire discussion, or close to it. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way does your treatment differ from the treatment of those editors that you've blocked? Seems to me you were treated pretty leniently. Eric   Corbett  03:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Name me one editor I've blocked. I don't use the block button lightly. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the past 2-plus years, you've made 50 noncontroversial blocks. Not seeing any evidence of misuse of blocks in any way.--MONGO 17:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By my arithmetic 50 is more than one. Agreed? Eric   Corbett  17:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Now.... name me one. Find me a Wikipedia editor in there whom you recognize, as opposed to random socks. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what your point is. Is it perhaps that IPs are simply shit on the soles of your shoes, as I am apparently? Eric   Corbett  18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never blocked you under any username to the best of my knowledge. I get that you tend to think all admins treat all non-admins badly, but I really don't think you'll find that's the case. But with that, if you'll excuse me, I've been asked to comment below. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

T:AD listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:AD. Since you had some involvement with the T:AD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). WOSlinker (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration
Regretfully, since this situation appears likely to recur, I am filing a request for arbitration regarding the Henry Earl issue. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW I regret that this all has gone this far, though I did say in the very beginning up there that this probably would get ugly if you didn't pull a 180° at the time. Perhaps an "ok, I see consensus is against me" mea culpa here could avert an Arb case? Tarc (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, I've done plenty of things that clearly did not turn out as intended during my tenure here, but never done the same thing wrong twice. Obviously consensus is against me; I might as well say the sky is blue. At the same time, it's clear that this is about more than about just Mr. Earl, and I'm not sure whether enough will deem that recognizance significant enough. One of the things that I appreciate about you, Tarc, is that you've always talked to me, as much as about me. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally thought the Arb case could have been settled with a simple motion ... it would have resulted in a slap on some part of your anatomy, but not likely desysop. I really didn't think you had to do that  ES  &#38;L  01:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request
The arbitration case request that you were a party to has been declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 05:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please reconsider
Please do not follow the direction of your current inclination! Take a couple days to fully consider your steps; weighing the ramifications. Do not move with haste, choosing instead thoughtful deliberation. You owe this much to yourself, and to those who will render support if given a chance. Please, wait two more days; in peaceful meditation, then comment on what you have decided. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I echo the above -- SilkTork's ill-considered comments (If we accept this case I don't think it would end well for him, and the process would be quite unpleasant and time consuming for all concerned. Jclemens has the option of resigning his advanced permissions (under a cloud) and when this has blown over of asking the community if they still trust him) that it would almost certainly end in your desysopping was IMO improper for anyone who is officially an impartial arbiter, and I can see why the history of such pre-judgements on the part of some ArbCom members may cause a belief that simply walking away is a good idea. It ain't.  Collect (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hate to see it come to this, but considering the circumstances I understand fully. Hopefully when/if you return it will be with a clear head.  I know a bunch of articles I could use your help fixing up. :) BOZ (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Farewell and come back soon. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes
Please excuse me if I don't respond individually at all promptly. I'm serious about the Wikibreak bit--I don't believe in posting later-rescinded retired templates. I still believe in the Wikipedia ethos, but I think I'm going to go back to working into less Balkanized areas, like, oh, getting recent television episodes to GA. The saying "friends come and go, but enemies accumulate" is not entirely true, but it's true enough that no matter what the case outcome, every significant admin action I tried to take would be marred by the fallout--indeed, this was the first one taken since I was not reelected, and I suppose being surprised at the vitriol and ferocity of the response was naive of me. For now, I'm going to see The Desolation of Smaug. I'll be back once I find the time to do some encyclopedia-building. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I could not let this go without expressing my concerns. First, I had to agree that your position was not favoured by consensus (I did not support it), but the way the community reacted was pretty far from optimal. There were a lot of better ways to resolve this dispute, and, in my perspective, desysopping you is something that changes nothing. Yes, you lost the tools, but that does not resolve the problem. It works as a punishment to try and make you correct whatever it has to be corrected, and I'm sure that if you weren't a sysop, no sanction would have happened (there is nothing to remove right? and a ban was far from warranted). This is the (somewhat) disadvantageous end of being an administrator; users believe that removing the hat is a plausible solution for a problem that relies on principles and perspective, not button smashing. That said, I hope you have a nice Wikibreak. The Desolation of Smaug looks like a good movie, I will see it too when it comes out in my country. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A classy decision, showing emotional maturity, and acting in the best interests of the project. Thank you. I'll keep an eye out for the RfA after your break. --Elonka 02:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Jclemens, I know we clashed a bit this week, but I don't consider you an enemy, and I hope that you come back from your break refreshed and ready to return to work building the encyclopedia. I know you've done some good work improving articles to GA status or better, so if you're ever interested in working with me to take any of the articles I've started to the next level, I would be happy to be your partner in that. Best, 28bytes (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know we haven't always agreed but good luck all the same. With all the bad and abusive admins out there I never believed you to be one of them (and still don't) and it surprised me to see this action. The project is losing out here. Kumioko (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just want to say I'm saddened by the way this turned out and I want to thank you for the vast majority of your admin work, which has been excellent and entirely uncontroversial - while I have disagreed with you over individual issues, I have no doubt that you have always acted in the way you thought best for the project. I don't think the Arb case was likely to end in desysop, but your exit from it was honorable. Get some strength from your break, and I hope you have a relaxed and enjoyable time when you return. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, I rather missed the case as I was unavailable at the weekend, but having read a fair amount of it now, I just wanted to come over and thank you for making the tough decision for the sake of the encyclopedia. I do hope you return. Worm TT( talk ) 08:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, whenever I see your name, I always think to myself, "We have a strong opinion to deal with." More often than not, that opinion ends up to be what's best for this encyclopedia. I'm sad to see you go too. Thanks for your years of great service! Best of luck, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to thank you for your integrity and courage. Wikipedia is upside down-inside outside upside down in fact, to quote a well-known author among the parent crowd-where rhetoric is taken for honesty, single statements can be unforgiven for long periods of time, while editors and admins showing years-long patterns of abuse are tolerated and even supported. There were other, more productive ways to handle this most recent situation, That this community, right now, chooses the most archaic, and least evolutionary will only damage us in terms of the ultimate productivity of this site. Best wishes and again thank you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC))
 * God bless you, Jclemens. And, thank you for all the good you've done here.  Enjoy your wikibreak and Merry Christmas!  Hope to see you back, soon.  --71.163.153.146 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations
On your promotion! There is a reason they call admin tools the mop. Its much more fun to write articles and participate in discussions as an editor with only your power of persuasion. The people who have impaired Mr. Earl's livelihood in a paternalistic spasm of intended do-gooder censorship will have to live with their sins. Seriously, I hope you are able to return and have fun, otherwise there is no reason to be here. Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:


 * This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
 * Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
 * The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
 * An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ask for copy of deleted article
This article Veterans Today which had a lot of wikilinks from articles was just deleted. Could you drop off a copy of the deleted article someplace where it I could look at it? I could not even find any record of any discussion of deletion. Bachcell (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Jclemens is on an extended wikibreak, but I can help you out.  It looks like this page was speedily deleted, in which case you won't find a deletion discussion.  I will userfy this for you so that you can work on it. BOZ (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will say that there is a lot of edit history to go through, and there may have been more than one version, so you may want to pull things from various stages of the article. BOZ (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd advise caution here, as in the deletion review, the admins specifically declined to restore the article for review as it has contained severe BLP violations since its creation. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I was unaware of it. Do you think it would be possible to have an article on this subject without the BLP violations?  BOZ (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into the organization in great detail, but it doesn't look promising. If you do a google search on them, it starts to hit onto Facebook, youtube, etc... which is never a good sign for finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Bachcell, if you want to work on this article in your userspace, please do so, and focus on rewriting it to make sure that BLP violations are removed. If you are unable to do so, I am going to have to delete this article again. BOZ (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that will be great. It would help if Tarc or somebody else mentions who is the subject of BLP concerns. The latest version will be fine. Bachcell (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to an upcoming WikiWednesday meetup!
Hi Jclemens, you are invited to come meet fellow wiki enthusiasts at WikiWednesday, a series of meetups for fans of Wikipedia, PortlandWiki, and wikis in general. If you are interested in attending, we will be meeting at NedSpace (619 SW 11th Avenue, Suite 250, at the corner of SW 11th and Morrison) at 6pm on Wednesday, May 21. You would be welcome to work on Wikipedia articles of your choosing, or other preferred wikis. I'll be there to help out. Hope to see you there! (Feel free to RSVP on my talk page or here.) -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Alice Kurashige delete
Hi, you deleted this page in 2009. Could you post what was deleted on my talk page, so I can get a sense of what's needed? thanks--Aichik (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Aichik. As Jclemens is no longer an administrator, I restored the page and moved it to User:Aichik/Alice K. Kurashige. He deleted the page in 2009 due to an expired PROD, at which point it looked like this: . Someone recreated the page last year, but it was apparently a copyvio per Suspected copyright violations/2013-04-24, and it was deleted again. Since it has always had sourcing issues, I went ahead and blanked the page; if you are able to find sources to improve this one, please work on it and restore it or move it to WP:DRAFTS. BOZ (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Trevor Snarr
Hello Jclemens,

I would like to re-establish the page for myself as Trevor Snarr or create a new one. I'm heavily back into acting again and would like to note other life accomplishments as in college degree, military service, LDS ministry service along with humanitarian service. Please view my imdb page www.imdb.me/trevorsnarr

Any help with this request would be greatly appreciated. Hope your well and hope to hear from you soon.

Best, Trevor Snarr — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorSnarr (talk • contribs) 05:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497 --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)

User:WayneRay back with a new account...briefly
Greetings, my user:WayneRay page was deleted for supposed vandalism etc. I have been incarcirated for three years and had instructed my daughter to edit and update my main page and delete the previous vandalisms. She was not internet savvy as I had thought so her mistakes were considered the errors of which you speak. Can my user page be replaced? I can use this new one but have to edit all the updated links WayneScottRay (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * was created today and began editing the Wayne Ray article. This is clearly another account by the same user as . In light of your block message at the latter account, I have indefinitely blocked the new account—and I wanted to make sure you were aware of the actions I took against the new account. —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed undelete
First of all, let me know what I do wrong at any stage of the process here. I'm brand spanking new to editing wikipedia and I'm probably making all kinds of errors.

I read your page about deletion and as far as I can tell I'm going about this correctly. In 2009 you deleted the page for Massive (music software) for "No demonstration of notability independent of the company that produces the product; no third party sourcing." I don't know if Massive was as well known in 2009 as it is today, but it's phenomenally important now, as far as EDM production goes. Quite a few major bass music producer have publicly acknowledged using it, and its sound was very influential.

http://www.musicradar.com/us/tuition/tech/the-54-best-vst-au-plugin-synths-in-the-world-today-262145/53 Skrillex listing Massive as one of his favorite synths: http://www.musicradar.com/us/news/tech/interview-skrillex-on-ableton-live-plug-ins-production-and-more-510973 Excision listing Massive as his go-to synth: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1dwbbj/i_am_excision_dubstep_producerdjrobot_dinosaur/c9ugd8x Some pages dedicated to tutorials/use: https://www.facebook.com/MassiveSynth http://adsrsounds.com/synth/massive/ http://www.massivesynth.com

Just let me know what to do next and I'll give it a shot.
 * Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm no longer part of any admin or leadership role on Wikipedia--I cannot actually undelete anything at this point. You can wait until someone who is reads this here, or you can ask again at WP:REFUND.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements
The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe stop doing that
Your post in Oathkeeper was a bit attack-y, don't you think? I find it amazing that you jump down my throat over a matter that I did not start, over content that should not be in the article, instead of focusing on the one person who fought tooth and nail against no less than three different consensus' and RfCs. I think that, at best, you might want to rephrase your snarky post about my Wikipedia experience. And I am saying please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No attack intended or implied. No jumping down anyone's throat here, although I get that you might think that.  If you'll check around, you'll find I have a reputation for being blunt, and that's exactly what I'm doing here:
 * 1) Wikipedia works on consensus, and you're in such a minority view that everyone else who started out supporting your viewpoint has wandered off. If this were a win/lose game, you'd be losing badly.
 * 2) But it's NOT a win-lose game. We all win when good content is added, and all lose when pointless debates bog things down such that content creators are busy doing other stuff instead of creating or improving content.
 * 3) The WP:STICK reference is itself WP:AGFing that if you weren't mired in the debate that you are perpetuating, you'd be off adding or improving content. You genuinely seem like a fastidious and conscientious chap who'd be off improving things if you weren't arguing about something you find objectionable but no one else does.
 * Fact is, I disagree with your position, and think your cavalier use of "fancruft" is both wildly inaccurate in this context (really... have you SEEN some of the real fancruft around here?) and needlessly pejorative, but that's not why I said what I did. Rather, I hope you can just accept that your viewpoint hasn't been supported, leave the particular disagreement behind, and move on to other matters.  People who cannot do so don't last long on Wikipedia--not because they're banned or driven off, but because their inability to work in a place where their strongly held views are rejected becomes self-liming.  Please don't let that be you. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know that it was just my perception, and that no snark was intended. As for my rep for being blunt, you will have to fotgive me; I have less time for tolerating bullshit on WIkipedia than some. More power to those who do.
 * I realize that the side not in favor of inclusion has either wandered off or been worn down by another user's (four) months' long efforts to include the material, despite any and all consensus. It has been an instructive period for me, as well: determination is a lot more important than being right. Not the best lesson, but the one best demonstrated in that article. Live and learn.
 * I am not going to address the content anymore, since a new consensus has emerged. In fact, consensus has been forcibly pushed one way, and most of the dissenters, doing this for free, simply realized that we weren't getting paid to deal with the sort of personality and stubbornness that one user exhibited that most wandered off. So consensus will remain in place...until someone uses the argument to include fan sites that are slightly less acceptable, using this example. Then less acceptable and then even less acceptable. That's how a slippery slope works. Allowing fan sites is an incredibly bad idea, but some lessons have to be learned the hard way.
 * Anyhoo, I'm done with the argument about the content. If it sounds like there are hard feelings, well, there are. However, that'll fade as I work other articles in my free time. I can see why my Dad didn't come back to Wikipedia after his health improved. Einstein said there are only two infinite things, and this four-month misadventure has been an object lesson in the other one.
 * Again, thanks for letting me know that no insult was intended, and thanks for also taking the time to respond. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack's representation of the dispute is not entirely accurate. He claims that I've been forcibly pushing against consensus and that is not true.  The consensus of previous parts of the discussion was never "don't include this content"; it was "don't use this/that specific source." So I found better ones.  I also repeatedly asked other participants if they had any objections to this material other than sourcing and repeatedly got the answer "No," including from Jack.  But it's possible that what Jack's really objecting to is, "Hey I wasn't always the only one arguing my side; sometimes it was the other side that had only one person," and that is true.  Sometimes I was the only one.  If you're wondering why Doniago, DonQuixote or Diego aren't still participating, the best thing to do is to ask them, not Jack or myself.
 * The slippery slope is another non-problem. You know better than either Jack or me that Westeros.org has been used on Wikipedia for years.  But before finding out that all the GA articles used Westeros.org, I proposed using a high-quality fanblog article written by Ana Carol.  Even though it was on a professionally laid out site, even though Ms. Carol was a named member of its staff with credentials provided, even though it was cited to support an extremely lightweight claim, it still didn't make the cut.  If there were a slippery slope, this is where we'd have slipped. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog, that's not helpful either. I'm perfectly capable of drawing my own conclusions about things, and if you'll read WP:STICK yourself, you'll see that it also equally applies to 'winners' in a debate.  My advice to let the thing die a natural death, move on, and add or improve content applies equally to all participants.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article content is not what motivated that post. To put it as mildly as possible, I don't like it when people say things about me that aren't true. Jack's talking to you, that's his and your business.  Jack's making accusations about me to you, that's my business. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to work on Wikipedia, get used to people lying about you--or rather, speaking about things from their own perspective in a manner that you view as so divergent from actual reality that it is indistinguishable from malicious falsehood. Let your own record and conduct speak for itself and ignore the rest, or else you, too, will get too worked up to be effective on Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this most astute statement. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC))

Good to see you around
Hey Jclemens, good to see you around. Have ayed you on autopatrolled, rollback & pending. Write back if you want any other assistance any time.  Wifione  Message 14:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I won't be dedicating scads of time to Wikipedia, but if I see a fixable problem, I'll do what I've always done, and, well, fix it.  I've added a few refs to User:Jclemens/Nac Mac Feegle.  Take a gander at the diffs since you restored it.  I'd like to get it back into mainspace promptly, so others can see and improve the cruftiness bits, now that I've gone ahead and added 3 RS'es which should at least minimally adequately document notability.  Let me know how much more you'd like to see done before mainspacing.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I had deleted the article based on an AfD. Your opinion is as good, if not better, than mine on the notability of an article. I respect you on that. So if you believe the article is notable enough, please move it to mainspace whenever you feel like. Thanks and regards.  Wifione  Message 04:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, but I'm not an admin anymore, so rather than me just saying "in my judgment, what I've done satisfies the notability objection in the original AfD and sufficiently changes the article that G4 no longer applies", even though I made those assessments daily for five years or so, I'll defer to the judgment of the deleting admin. If I'm right and it's adequate, positional power should be meaningless, and if you disagree, I'll keep working on it until you're satisfied. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am agreeing that it's nice seeing you around. Happy days.—John Cline (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * JClemens, good evening. I'm not actually the right guy to comment on the work you've done. My personal opinion is that because the first reference comes in the section on Language, and there is no referencing in the paragraphs above, there always might be a question or two raised about lack of referencing. That's just my opinion. I trust your sensibilities completely. If you wish me to move the article to mainspace, I will without any prejudices. Please do advise. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 03:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I leave for a bit and I see that you've been subjected to a bit of a fuss. Wasn't a pleasant thing when it was done to me either.  I've added two more Google News finds from just their current trove, and am more frustrated than ever with the in-universe tone of the current article--it makes it hard to find relevant spots to hang legitimate references, without the complete rewrite which I have no time to do.  To avoid imposing on you further, I'm moving my draft back into mainspace, where it can be more appropriately cleaned up and referenced by the community as a whole.  Again, I've not the time to make it a GA or anything of the sort, but just have demonstrated real-world coverage in a number of third-party, independent reliable sources, which both substantially change the article from the state at which it was when deleted, as well as answer the notability concerns that prompted the AfD in the first place.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Portland Oregon (March 7, 2015)
 You are invited!


 * Saturday, March 7: Art+Feminism – noon to 5pm
 * Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library (Mark Building, 2nd Floor; 1219 SW Park Avenue). Art+Feminism is a campaign to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. No Wikipedia editing experience necessary; as needed throughout the event, tutoring will be provided for Wikipedia newcomers. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Fire Service
Hello and good afternoon (at least it is afternoon where I am). I was looking at the Wikipedian firefighters category and noticed that you are one of the members of the Wikipedia community that lists yourself as being a firefighter. First and foremost let me say thank you for your service. While I myself am not a firefighter, I do work as a photographer with multiple local fire departments. I am honored to have firefighters as some of my closest friends.

I have been taking an active role in the Fire Service WikiProject and am trying to recruit more members to this cause. If this is something you have any interest in, please let me know? You can leave me a message on my talk page. Obviously there is zero obligation. An interest can be anything from helping out with a couple of pages in your local area to helping to overhaul major templates, and anything in between.

Once again, thank you for your service. Hope to hear from you soon. Stay safe! --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:SansapleadsforNed.png
Thank you for uploading File:SansapleadsforNed.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at File talk:SansapleadsforNed.png, but question whether this shouldn't instead be something better suited to an RfC rather than a file or two here and there--if the image is inappropriate under fair use, then a thousand or more other episode screenshot images are also, and this should be solved Wikipedia-wide, rather then piecemeal. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a lot of images which are inappropriate; it should be solved Wikipedia-wide, and part of that is doing it piecemeal- I sadly don't have access to a "delete all inappropriate non-free images" button. You're more than welcome to help. And no, there's no need for a RfC. This has been discussed countless times. Take a look at this, this and this, for instance. The take-home message is this: there's no automatic entitlement to non-free screenshots in episode articles. If a screenshot shows something that has to be seen (and I stress seen: not just an important scene, or a scene discussed in the article, or a scene that critics liked, but something that has to be seen to be understood) then it could be a useful addition, but the vast majority of articles are not going to need something like this. Good examples would be unusual filming styles, complex or subtle imagery, striking use of colour, etc. It's possible that I've misjudged this particular image and that this is the exception. However, to my eyes, it just looks like a picture of the character, of the kind often used (inappropriately) to say "this was an episode about this character", and the fact that you say "if the image is inappropriate under fair use, then a thousand or more other episode screenshot images are also" doesn't fill me with confidence. Screenshots cannot be justified under a "lots of other articles have screenshots" type rationale- they should be judged on their own merits. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So, the problem with that is that there IS critical commentary on the scene portrayed by that image, as I put in the image file talk page. Exacerbating that is the fact that you appear to have nominated several other images for deletion, all using a speedy deletion process, which is not for contested deletions.  While I have no doubt you believe your above rationale is sufficient to justify such deletions, a speedy process does nothing to spark community discussion on whether you're right or wrong.  Furthermore, when Wikipedians in good standing differ over whether a speedy deletion process applies (and I content F7 does not), then it is the wrong process to use.  If you dispute a well-articulated fair use rationale backed up by the article's critical commentary, as this one is, then you should not be using a speedy deletion tag at all--FFD would be the only appropriate process.
 * The fact that you've nominated a file with a detailed rationale that clearly meets are non-free use criteria further calls into question what went wrong: Are you going too fast and not looking carefully enough at the articles to see if the articles indeed have commentary on the fair use copyrighted images associated with them, or are you sufficiently out-of-step with Wikipedia's community consensus on image fair use that this is an attempt to substitute your own beliefs for that consensus? I expected the former, but your comments above would seem to suggest the latter. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is all very patronising. I am not "sufficiently out-of-step with Wikipedia's community consensus on image fair use", and I am most certainly not "attempt[ing] to substitute [my] own beliefs for that consensus", and I resent your suggestion that I am. I have shown you several discussions about "screenshot for identification"-type images. You've provided nothing, but are nonetheless happy to assert that I'm acting "out of process" in some way, and/or that I'm ignoring policy. If you genuinely think this particular image meets the NFCC, make your case on the article talk page, I'll engage with you there, and whoever comes to clearing out the deletion backlogs in a few days will take that into account. If the image is subsequently deleted, you can take it to DRV. If it is not deleted, I can take it to FFD. That all seems perfectly reasonable to me, and is how these things often work (and I note that this is not a "speedy" deletion in the usual sense- it's more like, though not identical to, a proposed deletion). If, on the other hand, you think we should be using episode screenshots for identification (in the way we use, for example, film posters, album covers, corporate logos, etc.), I think you need to take that up on the appropriate policy talk page. If you have some other objection, then I would appreciate it if you could state it again, as I seem to have missed it. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (I'm not watching this page- please ping me if you reply here again.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your linked discussions above aren't relevant to the argument I've made from the get-go. I've never asserted there was a "right" to any image in a TV episode infobox, but rather that our NFCC have been adequately met for the 3+ years since this image has been uploaded.  I find myself in the curious position of defending an image that wasn't my idea to add to the article in the first place, but only added at the request of a GAN article reviewer.  If you'll look at the files I've created throughout Wikimedia projects, you'll find that I've only uploaded a scant few fair use screen shots like this, far less than the number of photographs I've taken myself and uploaded to Commons with an appropriate CC license.  I'm not some "woo, fair use images everywhere!" partisan, but nor am I seeking to eliminate all fair use images from Wikipedia.  What deeply concerns me here is that you're going after an at best disputed fair use instead of other, more clear-cut cases of TV screenshots used for episode identification.  I've changed nothing in the article (which remains GA, and part of that content recognition process is an image fair use assessment) in response to your critique, because I believe it to be without actual merit and based on a particular interpretation of NFCC #8 that isn't supported by the text. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing
My ability to assume good faith is dwindling. message very clearly constitutes canvassing. Perhaps the fact that it has been ignored/the only voice its brought to the discussion has been a negative one should tell you something. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Iridescent was right when she led by example and spent a year without admin tools--it gives an unparalleled opportunity to see how admins treat ordinary users. Canvassing is about bringing people to a discussion to influence consensus--it says so twice in the top two paragraphs.  F7 is not a consensus process, but as you yourself have mentioned multiple times in discussions with me, rests solely on the evaluation of the administrator who will review the F7 tag.  Thus, asking a relevant Wikiproject--or even all of Wikipedia, for that matter--to intervene and oppose a speedy deletion process can never be canvassing. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright- you're weren't seeking to influence consensus, you were seeking to circumvent it. You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe that this makes your conduct perfectly acceptable. Like the rest of Wikipedia, the image deletion processes are based on consensus, and I have never said anything to the contrary. If you have something to say about my use of admin tools or some prejudice against non-admins which you believe I am displaying, please just say it. I don't deal in doublespeak. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Circumvent what? The default action for a contested speedy deletion is that the tag is removed and the content goes to XfD. You keep telling me I'm not following process, but you have never once pointed to any written process for F7 that differs from other speedies, and I've deleted over 10,000 things--articles, almost exclusively--and never once did I encounter a noncompliant process like you're asserting this one is.  You may think you're assuring me that everything is according to process, but what I hear is "You want a discussion-based XfD process? Too bad, you can't have one, because I said so."  By all rights, you should have spent your last message to me apologizing for making a serious, unsupported claim of CANVASSing, which is itself a violation of WP:WIAPA ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.") but you didn't. Why not? (shrug) You tell me.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Physical Security now notable?
The article I started some years ago on Journal of Physical Security was deleted by you as discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nealmcb#Proposed_deletion_of_Journal_of_Physical_Security. It has become more active since then, and now has an ISSN. Could you provide the most recent content from the deleted article as a Draft so we can review it and consider whether it is notable, worth updating and making an article again? Thanks. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker here. Jclemens is no longer an admin, but I am. If he has no objections, I can do the restore and Draft for you. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much
Thank you very much for the kind words about my recent Quality improvement efforts.

Much appreciated,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ethically, transparency takes a back seat to not harming living people when it must"
Sure, but is that the case when whiners dishonestly define the tamest statements of fact as "harm" merely to ban people for wrongthink? I don't think you fully realize how corrupt and dishonest this current ArbCom is. 70.56.27.239 (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the community's protection is the diversity of Arbcom. You have a dozen or more individually elected reps, and if someone doesn't want to keep quiet, they won't, despite the rules--I know that firsthand.  I also know firsthand that DGG and Casliber are both principled, decent human beings.  That's not to cast aspersions on anyone else currently on Arbcom, but merely to state that I've worked with both of them extensively, with Cas actually serving on the committee with me in his prior term. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sure a few of them are ethical, but being ethical doesn't prevent them from being misled and manipulated by others who are not. It isn't just peer pressure that's a factor, but actively misleading other arbitrators with their "interpretation" of the evidence. Arbitrators and admins alike are often incredibly lazy and will simply go along with whoever speaks first instead of making up their own mind. That's a huge problem.
 * Feel free to make proposals aimed at fixing the problems you perceive. I don't have time to do anything more active than my past year's level of participation, and thought I'd drop a note about how I interpreted the situation. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the words of encouragement, but I think wikipedia is a lost cause. I don't see any forces on the horizon that can fix the systemic problems. Enjoy your retirement. 70.56.27.239 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor do I, hence my (semi-)retirement. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello and a request
Waaaay back during the dawn of time, I reviewed the "Fire and Blood" Game of Thrones episode for you. Almost four years later, I have returned to ask a (perhaps random) favor. I'm currently in grad school working on an MA thesis on Wikipedia, fandom, and canon. Judging from your GA content, it seems that you have a soft spot for some TV shows, and I was wondering if I could ask you a few (~10) questions about how fans like yourself aggregate and define "canon" on Wikipedia in regards to cultural media objects (e.g. TV shows, movies)? You're under no obligation to say yes (I realize that you are semi-retired), but I just thought I'd ask! I'm sorry that this might seem super-weird or out of the blue!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   22:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Sure, ask away with the questions, but the general rule is I don't think canonicity of fictional works matters enough to include in a Wikipedia article.  If you comb through my contribution histories, I think you'd find I've taken more than a few references to canon or canonicity out of articles.  Not because I don't think canonicity exists, but because it's generally not something covered by any RS'es.  For example, some of the Babylon 5 novels are considered more canonical than others, and we know this and can comment upon it because the B5 universe has a defined author, JMS, who is both an arbiter of canon, and an expert for WP:SELFPUB purposes.  Contrast that with Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight comics, which occur after the end of the television series, and are authorized by the creator.  How do they fundamentally differ from other comic books set in the same universe?  Is 'canonicity' even a thing?  There was a big whole set of Star Wars Extended Universe 'fan canon' (of which I am only peripherally aware, but know friends who can delve into great detail on it) of internally-consistent works of fiction, which just got blown up by The Force Awakens.  Does anyone really care that Alan Dean Foster's Splinter of the Mind's Eye was never considered canon while everything Timothy Zahn touched was?  Or, consider Richard Hatch's efforts to keep a Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) fictional canon going in print, while ignoring Battlestar Galactica 1980, which actually aired, with extreme prejudice.  Does canon really matter enough that we should pronounce, in Wikipedia's voice, what is regarded as canon and what is not?  I generally think not, and find many mentions of canonicity on Wikipedia to have been overwrought, under-supported, and not of interest to most readers. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, the questions I was going to ask were pretty much answered by your response (which I greatly appreciate)! I guess I just have two additional questions I'd like to ask. First, do you think the author is the one who ultimately has the final say in what is and is not canon (like your B5 and BtVS examples)? Second, from your observations, how do you think editors who do insert references to canon conceive of it in the first place? This is a rather broad question, I realize that. But you have a very unique perspective and I'd like to hear your opinion(s).-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   02:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So to understand fictional canon, I would recommend first considering the use and function of religious canon: canon sets the ground rules for the conversation. If we're discussing some point of orthodox Christian doctrine, and you decide to bring up a point that relies on The Gospel of Thomas, then you've committed a debate foul by bringing up a non-canonical work.  This isn't a statement of the value, correctness, authenticity, or any other aspect of the Gospel of Thomas: it's not a canonical work, full stop.  Or if you and I are playing Star Fleet Battles, we agree on the era and technology available before we set up our fleets, otherwise we can have nominally equal fleets, but anachronistic technology renders the game unbalanced.
 * In the case of a fictional universe, the stakes are much lower: no one's getting tagged a heretic, at any more than the most trivial level, for declaring that Seeing Red (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) never happened and Willow and Tara are living happily ever after. There are plenty of jokes about 'three Star Wars movies' or 'Boy, I'm glad they never made any Matrix sequels', that make light of the fact that just because the author of a fictional work makes new content doesn't mean it will be universally acclaimed by fans of the original work.  Dune (novel) is easily the best novel in existence... but the subsequent books in the same universe each sucked more than the last.  So in fiction, canon really governs the conversation between people.  Its antithesis is fan fiction, where anyone, anywhere can decide to make stuff up and pretend as if it's part of a larger universe.  Most people who write fanfic have an adequate grip on reality and understand that their creations are of limited interest to others... but I do remember once being tempted to fake a heart attack or seizure to get away from a woman who was regaling me with her tales of extended Airwolf universe fiction, inspired by a role-playing game set in that fictional universe... but I digress. Canon is why two people can have a conversation about a body of work, and agree on what is in or out of that work.  The specific mechanism will vary, and it can really be negotiated by whomever wants to talk about it: Anyone can make a Star Wars costume, but if you want to be part of the 501st Legion, then they have some rules for you to follow. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent respones. I really appreciate the thought you put into these, and I sincerely want to thank you for your help.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Mieko Ishikawa
Hi, As part of a series of articles on women in video games, I'm looking to create an article on Mieko Ishikawa. I notice that a previous version was deleted in February 2010; likely because of insufficient sources. While this is a long time ago, I'm wondering if it is possible to have a copy restored to my Sandbox. I notice that you are now listed as semi-retired, so will create a new draft in User space in any case. Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I no longer have access to deleted articles, so I can't help you. You can ask WP:REFUND, or wait for a talk page stalker admin (there are a couple) to notice and come to your aid. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the quick response; greatly appreciate it. I will see how I go with the WP:REFUND. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can assist if needed. BOZ (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Many thanks for the offer of assistance; appreciate it. I have already received a "REFUND". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

‎Amendment request on arbitration decision against Rodhullandemu
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --George Ho (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation, but I have nothing to say in public on the matter. The current committee is welcome to contact me off-wiki if they believe the private evidence considered by the committee passing the motion in question is insufficient to provide a robust and thorough reexamination of the matter, or if they otherwise desire an updated opinion from me on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Lucy spy ring
Hi; just to say, thank you for your explanation, and for responding to this; I shall go and have think about it (but not tonight!) Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
Hi, since we interacted on the article Ark Encounter, where you rendered a 3O, I'm reaching out to you for an opinion. It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The reassessment raises the questions of sourcing; neutrality; and level of detail present in the article. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz.

I would welcome input or a review of the article to see if it still meets Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would appreciate any feedback you could share. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would be willing to do this, but it will likely have to wait until at least next Wednesday. My Wikipedia time is limited by other obligations, but I do thank you for asking and hope that the reassessment has the time to wait until I can review it and give it justice.  It's been a few years since I've done any substantial GA work, so I will be needing to bring myself back up to date.... but I'd been meaning to do that regardless. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That would be great. The discussion has been quite lively and is still on-going. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, I looked through everything, and it looks like you have a set of very capable and interested editors who are working actively on the article. I don't see any good reason for me to chime in additionally.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I don't think your opinion would be redundant, as there was a lot of comments from MilHist coordinators to the effect of: "This source is fine"; "I think the lede is excellent"; "The more detail the better"; "No, this is important"; "I suggest you have a look at some other military biographical articles and educate yourself, because you are way off base with this"; "And at a glance I can see important points, like the fact that he spent twelve years as an Oberleutnant"; "You would need to establish that Gordon Williamson is not reliable"; "I strongly disagree. I personally prefer the German version"; "...this GAR has been a complete waste of the valuable time of a number of experienced editors"; "this is arrant nonsense" [my comments]; much more. I'm concerned that the MilHist community would treat this a "no consensus" and this lack of consensus would block further reassessment of similarly flawed articles, such as Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, Otto Kittel and Kurt Welter, among what appears to be dozens of others.

I've already seen this in edit summaries from the editor who opposed the edits to the Strachwitz article, such as:
 * "It is pretty clear you edits of this type are opposed, stop. Justify them on talk in each case". In Heinrich von Vietinghoff.
 * "it is pretty clear from the current GAR that these deletions are not iaw consensus in the Milhist community regarding these bios". In Erich-Heinrich Clößner.
 * "That is not how we do military biographies on en WP". In Fridolin von Senger und Etterlin.

I see a lot of emphasis on "this is how we do things" and "this has been established by consensus", resulting in articles that look similar to the Strachwitz one.

If you'd rather not contribute, that's totally cool and then thanks for letting me vent! :-). But if you have any suggestions on how to handle things going forward, that would be much appreciated. Either way is fine. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think one of the problems of Wikipedia is that 1) it develops its own norms, and 2) new editors are viewed through the lens of past battlefield/argumentative editors. While everything is supposed to be collaborative, the fact is, editors who've been around for a while start getting cantankerous.  Not out of ill will, mind you, but because they've had these same interactions before, and after a while these sorts of things just seem to be repetitive and bothersome.  Thus, they can be brusque and come off as isolationist, even if they really don't intend to be.  My take is to be open to suggestions, and start conversations with questions rather than posting suggestions for change immediately--while it SHOULD be all the same, the former seems less threatening than the latter. Does that help at all? Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see your datestamp
I know neither of us is particularly active these days, but I'm glad to see we're both still breathing. Best wishes and if I can ever be of service, please feel invited to call on me. BusterD (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. I'm futzing around with GA and AfD stuff again, which was always the part of Wikipedia where I felt my contributions mattered the most, as time becomes available between work, family, volunteering, and more graduate school. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Any TPS with OTRS access?
I need to check the OTRS permissions of two files in Nadia Kaabi-Linke as part of a GA review. I've not used OTRS in years and my account is long since gone--can any Talk Page Stalker log in and find/update the status of those two images? Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been handled. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal.
 * Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
 * Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
 * Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
 * Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
 * Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
 * Join the editorial board.
 * Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
 * Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
 * Technical work like template designing for the journal.
 * Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to . If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at.
 * Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 14:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

WikiProject Computer Security user status
Hello Jclemens,

I would just like to inquire on your status on WikiProject Computer Security as the list of WikiProject Computer Security/Members is going to be improved to list active and inactive users.

This is update is being done according to a request for comments on the WikiProject Computer Security talk page. Be sure to state your status at the User status section in the WikiProject Computer Security talk page before the end of four weeks as this will state your status as inactive in the project if not done before then.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nasopharyngeal airway
Hi. I saw you deleted the following content: Insertion of an NPA is absolutely contraindicated in patients with severe head or facial injuries, or have evidence of a basilar skull fracture (Battle's sign, raccoon eyes, cerebrospinal fluid/blood from ears, etc.) due to the possibility of direct intrusion into brain tissue. from Nasopharyngeal airway with the reason: "That's not only uncited, it's factually incorrect."

I have heard this on several courses and think I also saw in my advance life support manual from ERC (I have not checked before posting). I have reverted your edit for now but if you could provide any form of evidence why this is incorrect I would love see it. I tried to do a quick search and only found this, an article I do not have access to (maybe you do). ...I know it is apples and oranges but I have seen a CT-scan of a nasogastric tube displaced into the lateral ventricle in a patient with a basilar fracture, so I have decided to revert you edit for now.

Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for bringing this to my talk page. Here's a relevant PDF link, which should be available to all: .  A follow-up industry summary is .  Basically, it's theoretically *possible*, but if anyone has a skull fracture *that* bad, they are likely going to die anyways, and managing a non-OPA-manageable airway clearly takes precedence in an emergency situation.  Please note that you're not allowed to simply re-add an uncited bit of info: if you want it back in the article, you need to provide a citation, because as it stands now, there isn't one, which means it stays out until and unless a citation is added.  I suppose it would be POSSIBLE to use low-quality EMT textbooks that blindly repeat the legend, but a WP:MEDRS compliant source would trump that. It would be reasonable to mention that myth in the context that modern science and risk management have refuted it, but since I don't particularly feel like doing that at the time, I'm simply going to remove it again.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

iron
Sorry for the slight delay. I have been reading more on the biology sections and should have a rewrite ready in the article of the last parts that need reorganisation at the end hopefully tomorrow. Then I will ping you again. I'm really sorry this has lasted this long but I want the article to really deserve the green plus at the end of it. Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a long, complicated, and important article. Keep up the good work. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we may be OK now for Fe, even though I'm still not quite sure about the biology bits. I'm pretty sure I fixed everything; if not, please remind me. Double sharp (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I will look at again, most likely tomorrow night. Jclemens (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review
Hi Jclemens: Thanks for reviewing! I have copy edited the article and provided replies at Talk:ReaLemon/GA1. North America1000 22:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I should be able to look at this tomorrow night. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Good Article backlog elimination drive barnstar

 * Thanks! Although I still have 4 of them in progress... Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Larry Y. Wilson
I read what you said in the DRV about the Larry Y. Wilson article I have been trying to get reinstated. I would welcome the chance to work off the old article to make a new one better, but I would need that page userfied so I could have access to it. You could even restore it to my sandbox or whatever needs to be done in that regard. I would also be open to having an impartial, non-LDS editor look at the article before it's published again, just to make sure everything's in order. Thanks for letting me know that is an option. I was not aware of this. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint, but I'm no longer an administrator. You could ask at WP:REFUND with the same query and someone might get it to you faster, but there are a few admins who watch my talk page and might be inclined to help if you wanted to wait for one of them to notice. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

curationists of the world, untie!
I like your suggestion of "curationist" as alternative inbetween wp:inclusionist and wp:exclusionist. I would sport a curationist userbox at my User-page, if/when you create one! Maybe it would require an essay over at meta, however. BTW, I admire your array of userboxes. I hope to achieve dan rank in a martial art someday, too. Cheers, -- do ncr  am  19:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I would term the (false, IMO) dichotomy as between inclusionism and deletionism. Inclusionism ignores the fact that to continue drawing readers, we need to continue to elevate the quality of our work, not just the quantity.  Deletionism, on the other hand, forgets that every good contributor started out as a "bad" contributor and that deleting all that "cruft" may well improve the encyclopedic quality, but at the expense of editor retention. What we really have is a dearth of people willing to take poorly constructed articles and lists, and revise and polish them so they shine. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Automagically
I realize that was likely just a typo in your response to SwisterTwister, but with "automagically" I think you may have just coined a new phrase! And if it was intentional, then it was a bit of genius. ;) BOZ (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint, but been using it for years, although I forget whom I first stole it from. I also tend to use "telepathetic" a bit, although there's not nearly so often a chance to use it in routine Wikipedia dialogue. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have used telepathetic before, one of my favorites. ;) BOZ (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2016 September 22
Actually, I vacated only SSTflyer's NAC of the DRV, not his closure (or relisting) of the AfD. But I suppose it does not matter.  Sandstein  21:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I completely misread that one.  That means his behavior should be further discussed... I'll self-revert. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Iron
Thx for the flowers and the helping hand. I recently got some flak, when I stated that theology is a wissenschaft - the German expression (not at all synonym) for science in the broad sense. But I still stay with that ;) The encyclopedic entries used are true secondary sources about interesting issues, quoting the bible is primary and more of a bore now and then. Let us see what comes out of it. Polentarion Talk 19:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm simply trying to get the article to where I can sign off on it as GA, when one editor comes along and removes everything remotely Biblical, despite it being sourced form the same secular RS as everything else. The Og thing is actually my fault, as I suggested it to the GA nominator, but I really like how you refocused the discussion. Hopefully that will stick. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Saw that review on the disk page. I did some arty-farty expansions as well. It seems that the bed of Og is related to a actual deposit in Jordan, Mugharet al Wardeh. RU Bochum got a dissertation about the site. But thats way beyound the scope of Iron. Polentarion Talk 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Bingo--that's why putting in a little bit of history is so interesting a problem. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, been reverted. I would prefer to contribute to the GA, less to hinder the process. Thats the one point that needs currently to be dealt with. I had a look on other "iron articles" and they are quite disappointing.
 * The review is critical about length of the lede.
 * I saw that Iron in folklore is rather low quality.
 * Ancient iron production is just the tekkie stuff.


 * History of ferrous metallurgy = Ferrous metallurgy and mentions the Hittite monopoly, but ignores the biblical roots of that theory.

That said, WP fails to deliver on the humanities. Polentarion Talk 09:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me here--My Wikipedia activities have ebb and flow based on my other activities, and I likely won't get to substantially contribute until tomorrow. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably you should have started to quote Weeks estimate Of all the ancient allusions to this metal, the Biblical ones are the most interesting. I had a look on her work, she nevertheless included studies on the symbolic role of iron working in India, Dehli column included. That said, lets be more mythological and less about bible studies. ;) Polentarion Talk 11:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing mythical about Biblical depictions of iron. It's treated as a noteworthy part of public life, not something that fell from the sky or was gifted directly by so-and-so angel to such-and-such a prophet.  In this case, the Hebrew text is most properly addressed as literature. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Good point. I just reentered the sources with a very short statement. Point is that content deemed as "mythical" or "symbolic" often has a core of evidence. Applies to both the ancient Troy and the Hettites and their iron knowledge. And the driver for both excavations was much more on the humanities side. Polentarion Talk 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The entry is a good article now - congratulations! I saw that our sceptical friend stays in reversal mode without discussion and went on the talk page. Polentarion Talk 13:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

another vital-article element
I've just nominated nitrogen for GA: since you gave a wonderfully detailed review for iron that massively improved the article, I thought you might be interested. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. It may take me a bit to get to it, but yes, I enjoyed collaborating with you on Iron as well. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

AFD ended in no consensus, please participate in the strawpoll
Not everyone was contacted apparently for the strawpoll, so I'm telling you about it now. Talk:List_of_Rozen_Maiden_characters  D r e a m Focus  19:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

List of minor characters in The Godfather series
Just letting you and the other editors who took part in the Articles for deletion/Five Families (The Godfather) discussion know: it's been closed with a consensus to redirect, in case you want to create that target article and perform the merge. Joyous! | Talk 00:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I may get to this over the next week if no one beats me to it. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Anti-Mormon bigotry."
Please refrain from accusing me of anti-Mormon bigotry, as you did here. It's not bigotry, it's common sense. Deseret News is indirectly owned by the LDS Church and has pledged to push a pro-Mormon point of view. How the hell can that be considered a neutral, independent source? And doesn't it seem problematic for a Mormon official to be only sourced from that and/or LDS Church websites? p b  p  02:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll respond there. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

1984
Hi, I completed everything on your list for my 1984 review. I don't know if I formatted the comments correctly, since it's my first GA review. thanks --<span style="font-weight:bold;font-variant:small-caps;color:#FFFFFF;background-color:#F49259;letter-spacing:1pt;">Jennica ✿ / talk 04:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh--sorry if I was a bit harsh: for a first effort, that's not bad at all. I somewhat just assumed you had brought an article to GA before, as it looks like you have done some reviews of your own.  I will be happy to help you through the process.  I'll re-review and see what, if anything, else needs to be done.  I view GA reviews as a collaborative effort to take an article to the next stage of quality, and if you don't understand why I'm asking for something to be changed, by all means tell me you don't understand, and I'll give more detailed reasons and point you to precedents or policy as appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Something to see
Hello! I don't know if Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/TTN is submitted correctly, but looking at http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=TTN&users=64.183.45.226&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki it seems obvious something's up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.201.254 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

OR–7
Thank you for your review of OR-7 and your kind comments. I'm glad you liked the article, and I'm especially pleased that you found it to be well-written and well-sourced. Finetooth (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I said those things because they were true. Thank YOU for writing about topics, even seemingly low importance ones, with that level of precision and RS citations; slam-dunk GA reviews are a nice change from the typical. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

re: Help wanted?
I very much appreciate your offer, and I will contact you before nominating any Star Trek article for deletion. Are you by any chance interested in Babylon 5 topics as well? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I am, but I am offering to help with anything at all. My expertise lies in fictional elements, specifically speculative (sci fi/fantasy) fiction, but I'd rather help pre-vet a nomination--and if convinced that it's NN support a merge or redirect--than roll the dice at AfD where effort does not guarantee consistent editor participation or administrator closure.  If I'm going to do the work of finding sources anyways, I'd rather do so in a collaborative manner which AfD has not been for quite some time. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is always good to work in collaborative manner. Here is the list of articles on Star Trek bios that I feel are failing notability now, and I cannot find good sources to add them (if you can, adding them even to further reading would show notability): Number One (Star Trek), Martok, Kes (Star Trek), Sarek and Saavik. Out of those, Kes is probably the easiest one to save, since she was on primary cast for a while. Do let me know if you think they can be saved as stand alone articles. No hurry! (PS. I was going to link you to Talk:List of starships in Babylon 5 but I see you've already found it!). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, Sarek is almost certainly going to be notable, so I will try to demonstrate with him. First thing to do is get a good Find sources going:
 * If the first one is likely to be too specific (e.g., anything with a differentiator in parentheses) or too general (like maybe this one) try a couple of other varieties. Note that by adding the differentiators in a subsequent piped parameter, you get things other than direct quotes of the entire article title:
 * So let's see what that gives us so far... Jclemens (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Second tip: Two browser windows up at once. I'm typing in this one while I review the findings in the other one.
 * Observation 1: Sarek is a last name, so when I go to Google Scholar first (which I advise: if you find good, high quality links there, you're done) in the topmost Find Sources... yeah, I get nothing trek related on page 1. Next!
 * Bingo Looking for Sarek/Lenard, I get that first. I can't access it without login credentials, but the snippet view from Google Scholar says "Spock, as Vulcan, serves as the racial 'other' companion to Kirk; the blending of Leonard Nimoy's real-life Jewish identity with the invented Vulcan culture further reiterated the ... In 'Journey to Babel' (17 Nov 1967), Spock and his Vulcan father Sarek (Mark Lenard) see each ..."  Ok, so that's definitely real-world, non-trivial content.  I can't tell exactly how much of it is about Sarek rather than Spock, but it's a good indication there is plenty more.
 * Next we get something clearly readable, but kind of meh on the surface. Non-trivial mention in that it discusses the interracial aspects of Sarek's marriage/Spock's parentage, but still it's mostly about Kirk/Uhura.  Still, this is a good indication that there's going to be even more commentary on the interracial marriage aspect of Sarek--and remember, it was only in 1967 that SCOTUS nullified all state prohibitions on interracial marriage IIRC, so this is very much current social commentary for ST:ToS.
 * Ok, that's what I have time to do now. It's taken about 15 minutes to search AND write about it, and we're just beginning to scratch the surface.  I may not be able to do more for a day or two, but you should be able to browse those Find Sources templates.  I usually go Scholar, then Books (but look for duplicates, fictional/in-universe works, Self-Published tripe, or Wikipedia mirrors!), then News, then the general web search.  Again, I start with Scholar because if I can find enough there, I'm done.
 * Questions so far? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * does that help at all? Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pinging me, without it I won't notice you reply here. I would suggest that, time permitting, you add your research to each article's talk page under heading notability. I usually check to see if anyone made any comments there prior to AfD. Kirk/Uhura kiss is certainly notable (I did start the article on that, I am not only in the deletion business :>) so yes, interracial marriage of Sarek could be added there as well. If there are some sources on him because of that, yes, it would make him notable (and would make for a great section in the article). Through regarding your first finds, we have to keep in mind that mentions in passing don't help much with notability, we prefer in-depth coverage (which I define to myself as at least a paragraph on the subject; one sentence doesn't cut it IMHO). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , First, the standard is 'significant' coverage, which is itself a change from 'non-trivial' in previous versions of the GNG. So that's clearly open to interpretation, but if I thought those references were insignificant and/or trivial, it would be disruptive editing to propose them in an AfD.  That is to say, I count a sentence that actually says something, not a paragraph.  So be aware that if you only look at your own priorities and interpretations when considering whether to AfD something, you will likely garner opposition from those who understand our guidelines differently.
 * Second, AfD is a necessarily confrontational venue. I'm in favor of making it articles for discussion, and having a bigger emphasis on WP:ATD outcomes such as redirection or merging, but that's on WP:PEREN I believe, and as such I'm unlikely to win that debate anytime soon.  Hence, if you propose a deletion, and I propose a merge, deletion is more likely to win than if I argue 'keep', directly opposing the delete, even if a merger would be an acceptable outcome to everyone.
 * Third and most important, I am more like an EMT than a public health nurse. I would love to spend hours of time cleaning up articles like this, but I have a job and family and other volunteer obligations. Thus, what I CAN do is flit from AfD to AfD via DELSORT lists, doing BEFORE work for poorly considered nominations and trying to save as many of the articles I can, which will then persist in an ongoing wretched state, because there aren't enough editors who actually like IMPROVING articles.  If you look at my awards wall, you'll see I spend most of my time doing GAs--reviews and updating existing articles.  If I go through and improve Sarek, I will have even less time to improve current Game of Thrones content.  It's taking me years to bring the whole of S1 to 'Good Topic'--if I fixed every notable article that was AfD'ed, I'd never get anything accomplished. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , First, the standard is 'significant' coverage, which is itself a change from 'non-trivial' in previous versions of the GNG. So that's clearly open to interpretation, but if I thought those references were insignificant and/or trivial, it would be disruptive editing to propose them in an AfD.  That is to say, I count a sentence that actually says something, not a paragraph.  So be aware that if you only look at your own priorities and interpretations when considering whether to AfD something, you will likely garner opposition from those who understand our guidelines differently.
 * Second, AfD is a necessarily confrontational venue. I'm in favor of making it articles for discussion, and having a bigger emphasis on WP:ATD outcomes such as redirection or merging, but that's on WP:PEREN I believe, and as such I'm unlikely to win that debate anytime soon.  Hence, if you propose a deletion, and I propose a merge, deletion is more likely to win than if I argue 'keep', directly opposing the delete, even if a merger would be an acceptable outcome to everyone.
 * Third and most important, I am more like an EMT than a public health nurse. I would love to spend hours of time cleaning up articles like this, but I have a job and family and other volunteer obligations. Thus, what I CAN do is flit from AfD to AfD via DELSORT lists, doing BEFORE work for poorly considered nominations and trying to save as many of the articles I can, which will then persist in an ongoing wretched state, because there aren't enough editors who actually like IMPROVING articles.  If you look at my awards wall, you'll see I spend most of my time doing GAs--reviews and updating existing articles.  If I go through and improve Sarek, I will have even less time to improve current Game of Thrones content.  It's taking me years to bring the whole of S1 to 'Good Topic'--if I fixed every notable article that was AfD'ed, I'd never get anything accomplished. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Unipiper
I am compiling data about The Unipiper as part of a Portland State University assignment. The subject mentioned his birthday on an episode of the podcast, The MarkandToddCast on August 12, 2016. I will be making more updates to the wiki article about this subject and I will try not to make too many mistakes. I will be adding television appearances, and awards and honors next. Nicholasbeatty (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, super! Let me know how I can help.  Do be aware that Wikipedia, because of its global audience, has stricter rules about what can be said about living persons such as Mr. Kidd:  We want to cover things without being either excessively promotional or, more importantly, harming him by what we write.  The answer to both is to make sure every point made is supported by something written elsewhere in a reliable source. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Cylon B
User:Cylon B is identified as suckpuppeteer in a case filed by an anonymous IP user whom I helped by moving that case from talk page as IP users like him couldn't make a page. The pages he deleted must be reversed and I let you know as you know him right? Java777 (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know Cylon B, other than to have opposed his widespread nonsense. The fact that he was an abusive sockpuppet/puppeteer makes his conduct that much more inexcusable.  Yes, feel free to go ahead and revert his deletions of content.  I've left a talk page message for the only admin who ever went along with any of his AfDs already notifying him of this development. Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Million Award

 * Heh. Thank you, but I'm only the reviewer. This award belongs to you and the other editors who did all the heavy lifting. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, your reviewing skills are great. You can award it to me if you really want to.... Laurdecl talk 07:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. And you can give me a The Reviewer Barnstar or The Premium Reviewer Barnstar if you see fit. Jclemens (talk)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Jclemens (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

MOS:TVPLOT
I haven't been as vocal as you, but I also oppose the TVPLOT changes which only allow for one level of plot summary following an article's lead. I'm sure there are plenty of other editors who would be upset – if they knew about the changes. If you still want to pursue the matter, I defer to your judgement. (I'm a little worried about being accused of canvassing if I notify editors the wrong way, and don't want to do anything that might undermine a possible second vote/poll.) Respectfully, Reidgreg (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We dealt with first things first--the copyright misinterpretation that underpinned the hard limits--but I am too busy with other things to be primary advocate for a revision of the hard limits right now. I continue to participate in the discussions, showing that I'm not just there as a one-off, and a few of the editors who felt threatened by my approach appear to have warmed up to considering my ideas.  I consider that appropriate progress towards consensus-building. Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack)
The article Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet another vital-article element
If you're still interested, I've worked on getting silver to GAN: now it is there, and I remembered how many great points you raised for iron last year that I would never have thought of by myself. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can wait a couple of days, yes, I will be happy to pick that up. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem; please take your time! Meanwhile I shall go through the "dark d-block" area near the beginning and improve the chemistry sections when appropriate for those old GAs. ^_^ Soon we shall have a transition metal good topic, I hope. Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

GTN of Alesta
Could you do the book for me? I can’t do that... Thanks! Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll have it done within the next 12 hours. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that's done at a basic level. Mind you, that's my second try at a book, so someone else may come along and fix it, but you have something now, where there was nothing before. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you mind if you gave the nomination a support? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Never listened to any of the music, but I can certainly see that these are legit GAs. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: trout and looking silly
I may look silly on occasion, but IMHO so do you when you are trying to defend totally meaningless fictional uber-footnote articles like Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance (2nd nomination). I presume you have watchlisted WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements, so we can both meet there. If I am unsure, I won't hesitate to ask, and I do appreciate that you can dig out sources better than me, but I don't want to bother you with each and every fiction-related AfD I will start, since again we can all see them in the linked page collecting them. PS. But since I am interested in saving content where possible, I'll alert you to one more ST deletion that so far has not been listed on that page: Mackenzie Calhoun. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Fictional Elements is one of the DELSORTs I have watchlisted. You have a fundamentally different philosophy of article retention, and one that I think is less congruent with Wikipedia policies, but more importantly less congruent with what Wikipedia envisioned itself to be.  The Eastern Alliance is a minor element in a modestly-analyzed fictional franchise from 40 years ago... but it still meets the GNG, so that any attempt to AfD it is inherently wrong: merge discussions for notable things go on their own talk pages.  Thus, you nominate things to try and get them merged, and I contest them with policy-based rationales that generally prevail on the basis of how good the underlying sources are.  If you stopped trying to use AfD to merge what you think are NN elements, you'd never see me. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

re: Proposal
Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong, just like me. Sometimes I just tag things with notability for few months, sometimes I propose a merge and sometimes I take them to AfD when I don't think there is any benefit for us to keep the article. I guess I could just redirect them, but I feel bad doing so with no prior discussion. But when I post on the talk page nobody replies. Unless I ping you, then you always say keep, then we have to take it to AfD. And if I just redirect it, what would stop you from reverting me at which point we would end up at AfD anyway? At least at AfD you'll see it and so will others and we can have a decent discussion. Otherwise the article either won't change or would be 'stealthily' deleted. Btw, I am always ok with soft deletions, i.e. deletion through redirect, while leaving the history of old article in place. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would I revert it a redirection? When something is deleted it is GONE.  All the donated time and text, lame though much of it may be, cannot be recovered by a non-admin.  When something is redirected, if someone sees it and wants to improve on what was there before they can see it in the redirect history, and then un-redirect and improve it.  I'd rather have a redirect 'war' than an afd:
 * You: Redirects X
 * Me: Un-redirects X, adding a couple of sources
 * You: again Redirects X, noting that the sourcing is uncompelling
 * Me: Un-redirects X again adding more sourcing.
 * The cool thing about that sort of editing collaboration is that every time the article comes back, it comes back with more sourcing, and we only go to AfD when an impasse is reached. It also has no timeline, so we can each leisurely move like a chess game with no clock, without any frantic rush to delete or save anything in a weeklong timeline.
 * Every time you prematurely nominate a fictional element for AfD, you're holding a gun to the head of the article: fix it, or it dies. For fictional elements, that is almost never the right answer (Quorum of Twelve seems to be a recent exception). If you stop threatening content with deletion, I don't have to rush to defend it.  There are all sorts of POV pushing, pseudoscience, and advocacy on Wikipedia that REALLY do need deletion.  In contrast to those, fictional elements are harmless, and by taking up AfD time and attention with harmless 'cruft' that could easily be dealt with by redirection, you're actually slowing the throughput for removing truly harmful material. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history. John1234ou812 (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

B4 clarification
A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 15:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Featured article review/Firefly (TV series)/archive1
Hello again. I read your comments at Talk:Firefly (TV series), indicating some interests, especially since you contributed to the article. I assume that you already know Featured article review/Firefly (TV series)/archive1, though I'll remind of you this, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, George. I'm not much of an FA'er myself, but I will be happy to help rectify any identified deficiencies.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Now the article is a candidate to become a former Featured Article with a broken star icon. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably inappropriate speedy deletions

 * For future reference, the post that started this was here

The article was written entirely from an in-universe perspective, and the title is misleading and would be unhelpful to anyone who has not heard of "Space Ghost" (i.e. most people in the world). The context is simply inadequate, and the creator is not new, though his immediate recreation of the page shows that he has not read the guidelines. However, I agree that a redirect would have been preferable in the first instance. Deb (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure I understand your response. Are you agreeing that your deletions did not fit the criteria for A1? Or are you asserting that they were, in fact, proper A1 speedy deletions? Please note again that the criteria for A1 excludes things that can be contextualized "possibly with the aid of a web search".  Mind you, I'm only able to see the title, not any content, so if there was another speedy deletion criterion which applied, I'd be interested to know what it was.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeing that I used it too quickly, where on further consideration I could have used a redirect. I would point out that the A1 criterion has long been the subject of argument, and the present wording appears to contradict itself. However, the deletion debate will be the decider on whether the page is encyclopedic. Deb (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'd suggest not using A1 on new articles like that at all. Having been both a content creator and a new page patroller, I get the uncomfortable tension between trying to keep the new nonsense to a minimum, and to not bite the newbies at the same time.  There's already a large sentiment that admins don't follow our own 'rules', and that sort of deletion only serves to reinforce that misapprehension, without really protecting Wikipedia from much.  A new "fancruft" article?  Big deal. There are so many more serious things wrong in Wikipedia--defamation, partisan hit pieces, copyvios, ads masquerading as articles, etc.--that I would encourage you to use IAR to deal with instead.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you don't mean to, but you are coming across as terribly condescending. Deb (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , that's a fair criticism. In my defense, I'm trying to be non-confrontational about correcting you and build trust and community in the process.  How would you suggest I have addressed the matter, both initially and in follow-up? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have said you could have let it go after my first response above. Now you just sound like you like the sound of your own voice (figuratively speaking). Deb (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have been happy to drop it if you'd initially said something simple like "Thanks for pointing that out." Unfortunately, you didn't, and still haven't, unequivocally acknowledged that your use of A1 violated both the letter and spirit of A1. When you do something wrong with the admin tools--as any admin who actually does stuff will do from time to time--the right way to deal with it is to apologize and move on.  You didn't, and thus this longer conversation ensued.  While I regret that this probably seems like I'm lecturing you, I'd much rather explain in detail than clutter up some noticeboard and nominate you for a Two Minutes Hate, as is a typical response to any admin getting anything wrong: I know, I've been the recipient of the latter on more than one occasion.  Are we good here? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're stuck on the idea of "wrong" and "right". I agreed with you, immediately, that a redirect would have been preferable. Later, I clarified my position by pointing out that the wording of A1 is self-contradictory and therefore bound to be open to interpretation, and it's therefore perfectly possible that my interpretation is not what is generally accepted. But I would suggest you read Wikilawyering again. You won't achieve compromise with other editors by repeatedly ticking them off for what you consider to be offences against the community, even though I know you believe you are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Let's put this behind us, please. Deb (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think you misunderstood my point. I am not interested in compromise, because there simply isn't anything to compromise about: this isn't a content discussion. My goal is to get an admin, you, to stop misusing your tools by deleting articles in ways not permitted by (speedy) deletion policy. My goal has always been to do so in a friendly, drama-free (or -minimized) manner, but that has not been received well, so I have tried becoming increasingly direct, in hopes that you would recognize your error and correct your interpretation and conduct. The fact that yes, Jan (Space Ghost) should indeed be a redirect somewhere else does not make your A1 deletions appropriate.
 * Your protestation that A1 is contradictory and open to interpretation is not compelling, because it's neither, and to the extent that you think it is, you undermine my faith in your ability to properly apply CSD criteria. This is not wikilawyering; this is only up for debate to the extent that you protest that the rules that govern your use of tools are too unclear. You have replied to my queries and statements appropriately politely per WP:ADMINACCT, and have my thanks for that. However, it has become increasingly clear that you are not going to change your position, and it serves nothing for me to keep repeating or rephrasing my critiques in hope that you will change your interpretation.  Wikipedia needs administrators willing to do the thankless job, but in order to thrive, our administrators must behave consistently and according to our documented tool usage policies.  I can't see the upside in widening the review here, however, since my effort has always been to make you better at your job, not parade your mistakes in public. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Do what you like. Here I was, thinking that you'd been hard done by when you lost your adminship, but now I can see the reasons for it. Deb (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Myocardial infarction good article nomination
Thank you greatly for your thorough and thoughtful review, the article has improved greatly through your commentary - we have both devoted a lot of time to improving this article and it really is looking much better.

As it is, in my opinion (as the nominator), I think the article meets the good article criteria and think we have addressed the main GA-related issues and are now at the point of mostly stylistic improvements more styled towards an WP:FA review.

I have attempted to address all the issues you have raised, I feel we are getting to a point where our stylistic or linguistic preferences are diverging and this has the potential to have another month or so of discussions... this is going to result in my limited wiki time being spent less fruitfully than on improving other articles (which is my main joy here).

I would ask that you have a quick look at any issues you believe are outstanding based strictly on the good article criteria that would block promotion. Any other issues we can continue to discuss on the talk page... I am getting itchy feet. As it is, I am going on holiday for 2 weeks and look forward to seeing your reply then (or, let's face it I'll probably check whilst on holiday anyway!) Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Tom, you've done a fantastic job. You've exceeded the GA criteria, and essentially rearchitected the whole article in the process of improving it.  See the Barnstar on your talk page; you've more than earned it and the GA pass.  I plead that my level of obsessiveness has been justified by the fact that, like it or not, people will read our health articles and do or not do things based on our info and recommendations, and, in this case, getting it right saves lives. Again, thanks for letting me work with you on this journey. Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The Reviewer Barnstar

 * Thanks again for putting up with me nit-picking things to death. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Nival_(company)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nival_(company). Pavel Novikov (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I missed this; I apparently dismissed the alert and didn't see this as nothing else changed on my talk page. Please accept my apologies.  I see that the proposal was already withdrawn, but I still would have contributed in a far more timely manner had I seen this.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Good topic question
Since you have experience with Good/Featured topics, and I've seen you around several Christianity-related AfDs, I thought I might prod you to see if you have an opinion on my question at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_questions. Hope all is well. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I'll take a look at it, but that's reasonably far afield from my areas of interest or expertise.  Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood and thanks for your comments there. I'll look over them more later and consider what the best way forward might be. Re: your interests or expertise, don't worry there aren't that many active editors who do care about this topic, so I tend to have to poke people who're around to take a look at it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for asking, and again I hope it helps. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Opinon for Articles of Deletion
Thanks, this is the first article I've wrote that has been nominated for deletion, so I'm a little nervous about the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navarre0107 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Complaint
As a former admin you should know better then to make unsubstantiated personal attacks against another editor as you did here. Comment on content not individuals. The ArbCom case you referenced was declined without me even making an opening statement. Heck I only typed one word before they started declining. Need more proof? User:Legacypac/CSD_log Feel free to retract your comment. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , help me out here... what, exactly, is the personal attack? What, exactly, would you prefer to see retracted? Do be aware that "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.", per WP:NPA. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * " I'll note that the tagger has been dragged to ArbCom for overzealous draftspace cleanup... Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2017 " which implies pretty strongly I've been overzealous in cleanup and does not note the case has been rejected. Like "Joe was accused of xyz" without telling the whole story, is just a way to cast doubt on someone without evidence. Legacypac (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of living in Wikipedia that other people will describe things in ways that you wouldn't. But really: how is describing your activities as overzealous cleanup a personal attack?  Overzealous cleanup is part and parcel of what we deal with at DRV: the exceptional bit isn't overzealous cleanup (which doesn't itself WP:ABF), but the fact that you were indeed drug to Arbcom.  The fact that they chose not to open a case is something you can, and did, note, but it doesn't change the fact that you were, indeed, drug to Arbcom. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * that is not why I was drug to arbcom. The real reason should be obvious from everyone's comments.  Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4 demonstrates that you've taken actions that are widely characterized by other editors as bad faith gaming the deletion system. Your actions led to User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring where your tactics were again repudiated.  The fact that another editor (whom I will not name so that you can actually still participate in this discussion) happens to carry a bigger grudge than everyone else does not mean you have clean hands. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I wish you two would stop using drug.  E Eng  04:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bro,
Hey Bro,

It looks like you are a good fighter. Can you plese give him - Luke Shen-Tien Chi and Spokenology: You and Me - a shot.Thanks man! peace.
 * What? Are you asking for my help with a deletion discussion? Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

CSD G5 discussion RFC
Sorry for naming it generically, I tried to launch the RFC with as neutral of title as possible to be as neutral as possible about the question at hand while at the same time trying to trout both sides of the debate for edit warring over some meta commentary about CSDs. Hasteur (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all good, man. Sometimes, I think I want to devote more time to Wikipedia, and then work clobbers me so hard I can't even read the section headings well enough to avoid a silly mistake like that one.  Thanks for starting it, it needed someone to try and bring some sense into things. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI
Just as an FYI since your involved in the AfD that I tagged Jared Andre Sawyer Jr. as undisclosed paid due to behavioral evidence here and on Commons. The main reason there is because I know some work is being done with ORES using that category. I've already said more than my fair bit in that AfD, so I don't want to raise it there, but did want to give you a heads up in case you were confused. All the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the heads up. I have no doubt that Sawyer or his fans (congregants?) are trying very hard to get him a Wikipedia article.  I don't see malice in that, and I'd say the efforts certainly lack subtlety.  I don't think we should be vindictive or punitive about it: He's not a non-public figure/low-profile individual, so if he's not yet notable, I fully expect he will be in a year or two. Thus, while there's certainly advocacy, I've not been impressed that it's paid in any meaningful sense.  What I do want to do is make sure that we're being fair to minority individuals who may not have access to the level of Wikipedia expertise you or I have: obviously, either one of us would go about improving an article on Sawyer in an entirely different manner. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh clearly. I actually feel quite strongly about that too. We disagree on a lot, but I hope you've seen me around enough to know that I take systemic bias very seriously, and especially on biographies of clerics try to fight against it. The UPE issues actually have nothing to do with the good faith fans at the AfD. The account that created the article created three unrelated articles within a two day window that fit a paid promotion pattern. The uploads at Commoms are actually clearer on this in my mind, all original proofs of copyrighted promo photo only available altered online. Like I said, the tag here is mainly in case it is kept, to have it in the category for any ORES research that is ongoing. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, the fans might not be fans. See Sockpuppet investigations/Creative2world. Connections on several unrelated articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Disappointing, but that sounds pretty damning. We'll see what the CU finds, but given the username naming conventions, I would expect it to be pretty obvious.  Again, thanks for keeping me in the loop.  It's so frustrating to argue the merits only to (probably) find that AGF was pointless.... Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Can you create the redirect discussion on theElisa_Jordana article? -- Eng. M.Bandara <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:Black">-Talk  08:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The place to do that is on the talk page of the article in question, just like you started a new discussion here. Just start with a relevant section title and something along the lines of "I think this article should be redirected to XYZ because..." and see what others say.  It may require some Wikiproject notifications to get enough input--if so, ping me again for how to do that in an appropriate manner. Jclemens (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Jclemens, I'm very sorry that this nonsense has been brought to your page. The individual above has been hell bent on getting Elisa Jordana's page deleted. If you look at this editor's history, you'll notice that he doesn't have a single American related edit to his name (although recently he nominated Punk News for deletion simply because their website is used as a source on Jordana's page). Don't you find it odd how all of the sudden he would take a random interest in Jordana and work so hard to get her page deleted? What's the motivation? Jordana's page has been vandalized repeatedly and I personally believe one of the vandals hired Eng.M.Bandara (a person who has been banned multiple times) on a website like Guru to take her page down. He presented his case and lost, and he is now trying to get you to do his dirty work. I kindly ask that you please do not assist him in accomplishing his goal. Thank you. LeafK1 (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern, but no need to follow him around. Wikipedia's processes are a bit arcane, having developed over years, and anyone is welcome to get help using them, regardless of whether you or I agree with their goals or not.  Per WP:NPA, you should not be making accusations that you cannot substantiate. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I made the discussion here [] can you could make the Wikiproject notification. Also, I have responded the above user on his talk page advising that I will be WP:AFG in response that that accusation. -- Eng. M.Bandara <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:Black">-Talk  01:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Grey Council moved to draftspace
An article you recently wished to contribute to, Grey Council has been moved to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) per the outcome of the AfD. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, feel free to mainspace it.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment on DRV suggestion
re your comment here - - thanks for the kudos on the 1E argument (which is also a hard argument to "win" - people who do BEFOREs end up seeing oodles of sources (that all say the same thing (paraphrased or are brief mentions - but that's a different matter))... I don't think putting this up for a merge discussion now would be correct (the AfD nom itself was arguing that the content for the part already exists in Line Mode Browser, so a merge wasn't necessary (though it retrospect there is some content that could be merged)) - wouldn't this be forum shopping to advance the same argument twice in close succession?Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'd never though of that in that way, but with a bit of reflection, I'd say that arguing for the same outcome in two venues would be forum shopping, but arguing for two different, even if only slightly different, outcomes each in an appropriate forum, would not run afoul of that. Basically, if it makes logical sense and doesn't have a STICK attached, it's probably OK.  I think deletion is clearly an inappropriate outcome because her name is a reasonable search term, so if not merging, redirection, rather than wiping all trace of her independent article from Wikipedia, is likely the most appropriate thing to argue. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was (perhaps not clearly enough) advocating for a redirect to Line Mode Browser (I agree that this is a reasonable search term). But I thought that WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT would run into opposition. Maybe I should've started as a merge discussion (it is debatable) - but I think it would be forum shopping (and being on the other side of the argument in terror-related AfDs - e.g. Talk:June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack which following a Keep AfD was suggested being merged to List of terrorist incidents in France (which was really a "stealth delete" as that is a list of one liners) - such shopping can be vexing). In any event - not great harm in WP:WAITING (the article has perhaps caused some harm in that it pushed Pellow into various "woman in tech" news stories and books - some of which wildly inaccurate - which then fed back into Wikipedia - I corrected this in a number of places - that took a one-liner from "lean out"  (that wasn't actually cited everywhere) that attributed in-wiki " credited for making the internet accessible to consumers for the first time" (while an early tool of some use - this did nothing of the sort (per any reasonable source) - this tool made the web demo (which at the time was few web pages at CERN) view able (in text only) on non-NEXT computers to the few people who actually had internet access at the time (which did not include consumers in 1991).)Icewhiz (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
Maybe Articles for deletion/Common outcomes needs a nutshell, but the discussion on the talk page makes loud and clear that this is not a neutral version to improve the page but an attempt to bolster Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes against people who are willing to judge school articles on face value and sources and not on AfD-history. Better no nutshell than a biased one. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right--so write a better version before you delete the one you find problematic; that's all my revert signaled: A meh nutshell summary is better, in most cases, than none at all. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Expand Article
@Jclemens with regards to the Deletion Review for the article, "Selena Zhao", the article has been reinstated but given that the presentation of multiple new sources demonstrates the potential for WP:GNG, how would you suggest expanding the article to incorporate these sources and improve it? Sources: http://web.icenetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120916&content_id=38517104&vkey=ice_news http://www.thewhig.com/2015/01/21/zhao-doesnt-disappoint https://skatecanada.ca/2014/10/trading-places-us-born-selena-zhao-proudly-represents-canada/ http://web.icenetwork.com/news/2016/09/12/200902400/the-inside-edge-chen-edmunds-headline-ewc https://goldenskate.com/2015/07/selena-zhao/ https://skatecanada.ca/2015/01/selena-zhao-wins-junior-womens-title-in-kingston/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.201 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How would I expand it? Well, I generally try and follow someone's career chronologically, breaking it up into sections or paragraphs as appropriate. Not really a subject matter expert, so I'm afraid I'd also have to say look at how other biographies of living people are constructed to get clues for how to format and emphasize things. Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)