User talk:Jclemens/Archive 4

Hold on a minute
While I agree that Service Academy Gay and Lesbian Alumni should have been deleted, it is not eligible for speedy deletion under the criterion you cited. It was not attacking anyone and stating that someone participated or led a group, even a gay group, is not automatically negative under WP:BLP. Please restore the article and allow the PROD to run its course. Otto4711 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Asserting that a servicemember is gay is a de facto assertion that they've violated the UCMJ--a crime, even though it's not being enforced at the moment. Such allegations, even if false, can harm the named person.  If you want to recreate such an article, feel free to do so, but without any unsourced names attached. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Under Don't ask, don't tell it is not a "crime" to be gay and in service. Under the regulation, homosexuality creates a "rebuttable presumption" that one will engage in "homosexual conduct". If the servicemember rebuts the presumption then s/he is eligible to remain in service. Your deletion was premised on a misunderstanding of the law. Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and your objection to G10 is based on an incomplete understanding of WP:HARM, unless you're also asserting that the U.S. military is sufficiently non-homophobic that an allegation of homosexual orientation and or conduct couldn't possibly hurt anyone's career. Issue closed. You may, of course, choose to recreate the article without names, with sufficient reliable sourcing for the included names, and/or take this to DRV. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to spend my time at DRV explaining your mistakes (including the mistaken assumption that anyone named in the article is currently serving in the US military and the fact that there was no explicit statement in the article about the sexuality of any named person). Your piss-poor "issue closed" attitude, though, sure helps me understand why it is so many people don't bother trying to talk to deleting admins before going to DRV. Have a pleasant afternoon. Otto4711 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd be hard pressed to explain my mistakes at DRV, because I didn't make any. Just as we presume people are alive unless reliable sourcing shows otherwise, the presumption that people who graduated from West Point 20 years ago might still be in the military is a presumption we make in order to avoid harm to living people.  If any mistake was made, it was your failure to note the unsourced BLP nature of those parts of the article and request G10.  Understandable, perhaps, but clearly a mistake. I have absolutely no obligation to argue such a clear-cut BLP case with anyone, especially someone who does not seem to take the impact of possibly defamatory unsourced content seriously. The fact that I'm explaining even further now merely demonstrates my good faith in the face of your cavalier attitude. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Ultimate DisneyMania Collection
Could you review the activity at this AfD you closed? Several editors are intent on removing comments from the discussion after closure because they were made by a now-banned user. Admin intervention to settle the issue would be welcome! Many thanks. I42 (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the edits change the outcome. In order to reopen the discussion, there would have to be an assertion that a banned user or sockpuppet had influenced the outcome of the AfD.... I don't see how that applies in this case. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Raeburn (fashion designer)
Dear Jclemens,

I have joined the project recently and have tried my best to contribute to the community activity. I am new on Wikipedia and despite having read the instructions I am not sure yet how some things work. If you found any discrepancies in my article I would be grateful if you could advise me what to improve rather then just simply delete all the content... Tepli (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)tepli

Might want to look again
You closed the AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/Zack Bennett as keep, but deleted it. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whooops. Fixed, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We all have those days. :) Niteshift36 (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Babylon 5 articles
Regarding your note here I can work with you on this. I have reviewed the B5-related articles previously and had similar thoughts. There is a lot of good content there, but susceptible to AfDs and the content is sometimes inappropriately split off into different articles. Is the B5 Wikiproject active? --maclean 19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than you, I've received no response to my posts, either there or on the B5 project talk. Frankly, I work much better when I'm collaborating with at least one other person in trying to improve things.  Are you up for such a Butch and Sundance take on it? :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't Butch and Sundance die at the end of that movie? I'm much slower on action. Actually, I'm about to go on a week-long vacation. Let me know what you have in mind. I won't be accessing this account on vacation but I may check my email. maclean 15:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we pick one category and make it into a list... List of locations in Babylon 5 is one I've already started, and it needs more stuff integrated into it, as well as a lot of cleanup work. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good place to start. I'll look into it tonight but then I'm away for the week. maclean 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a volunteer job, do what you can, be sure and enjoy your vacation! Thanks for the help! Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Keeping redirects
When you move a page like Fortress Hill Station (MTR) to Fortress Hill Station, please keep the redirect. In this case, it even has incoming links; in general, you should only delete the redirect if you'd normally be able to delete it through the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --NE2 09:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea why I didn't in that case, as I only consciously uncheck the box when there's a good reason to--that was six weeks ago, and I have no recollection of that article. Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nile Ranger
Hi. I see the Nile Ranger article has been deleted as "recreated", following an AfD !vote here. While at the time of the AfD the player didn't meet WP:ATHLETE he has since made his debut at senior level for Newcastle United, referenced on the Newcastle United website here (and elsewhere): "NEWCASTLE United hand senior debuts to Nile Ranger...", "Shola Ameobi (87) made it two after a mazy dribble inside the area before Nile Ranger got his first goal at senior level...". while admittedly this was in a friendly match the criterion at WP:ATHLETE doesn't appear to draw a distinction regarding the status of a match in which a participant has "... competed at the fully professional level of a sport". I see your protect log summary notes: "Any admin can unprotect per DRV or if there's a sourced assertion he now meets WP:ATHLETE", however since I've edited the article following the AfD but before it was deleted as a recreation I feel I'd be overstepping the mark if I were to unprotect it. Do you feel the source I've quoted is sufficient to unprotect and undelete, or would it be more appropriate for me to take it to DRV? Tonywalton Talk 14:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about I userify it for you, you add the sourced information on his new appearance, and then we move it back to mainspace when you and I agree it's ready? It ought to be a lot faster than DRV, and I have no objection to it existing, just that it seemed to have kept being recreated without the circumstances changing.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that - I'd have done that myself but, as I say, as an involved admin I wouldn't like to! Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 17:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfied and the blank page at Nile Ranger deleted. I'll work on it and give you a shout. Regards Tonywalton Talk 18:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, didn't realize you were a fellow admin, else I would have suggested you do it directly. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne

Request for assistance
I am currently trying to help the editors in the topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind invitation. However, I think I shall decline the invitation at this time.  I have enough other things to consume my energies. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a savvy editor and very helpful in religion and spirituality topic areas, so I thought to ask. Thank you for the response. If I can be of assistance to you, in the fashion I asked or otherwise, please do not hesitate to let me know. Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth & The Catapult
I was going to create a page for Elizabeth & The Catapult and saw a note that the page used to exist and that you had deleted it on 22 Jun 2009. Since I'm a non-admin, I don't know what the page looked like before deletion; do you feel that the band (which has since reached #1 on the iTunes singer/songwriter chart) doesn't meet notability requirements, or that the previous page was just poorly done? I don't want to recreate it if it goes against a previous consensus. --Toby Rush &#8249;&#8201; &#9990;|&#9997; &#8201;&#8250; 05:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure that an iTunes ranking meets WP:BAND, but I can restore the past article for you to work on in your directory, so you can use it as a starting point and improve it from there. Interested? Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, looking at it, there was a section that was a copyright violation, it was removed, and after it was taken out, there really wasn't that much of an article left. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to make a decent article about them, providing the sources exist. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it. If you don't mind restoring the old article to my directory when you have a moment, I think I have enough citations to flesh it out into something decent. I appreciate your help! --Toby Rush &#8249;&#8201; &#9990;|&#9997; &#8201;&#8250; 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved to User:TobyRush/Elizabeth & The Catapult Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll see what I can do with it. --Toby Rush &#8249;&#8201; &#9990;|&#9997; &#8201;&#8250; 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your restraint
I want to express my appreciation for your recognizing when choosing NOT to edit is the right thing to do. Such demonstrated restraint, a simple good-faith thing to do, gives me strong reason to more closely appreciate your reasoning when you do choose to participate. Good for you. Good for pagespace. Thanks again for keeping your eyes on the ball, a long way down the field. BusterD (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but which restraint is this in regard to? Jclemens (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I requested you take a break on Rachel Corrie; today you edited the page for the first time in weeks. BusterD (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I've been on and off the page since.  There simply wasn't any reason for me to have said or done anything in the interim. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saying. I called you out, then you did as I requested. I thank you for valuing my advice enough to act. BusterD (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The truth is more mundane. I keep worrying away at the topic of Saint Pancake, because it really is a festering sore in the pillar of NPOV and NOTCENSORED.  At the same time, there's no particular action on the table at the moment, so my participation in that thread is intentionally sparse--I wasn't planning on rapidly responding on that page no matter what you or anyone else might have said. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're correct, better sourcing will appear eventually, so you'll have something to work with. I just noticed the Corrie talk space isn't as noisy recently. BusterD (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WoW
What are we doing with Willy sightings these days? ANI? UAA? Ignoring? BusterD (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno. I think the real WoW retired and apologized, but we've got a Pseudo-WoW doing the same schtick. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a simple dance to learn. I was looking for the appropriate warning template. Level 4 improper humor? UW-sarcasm? BusterD (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, if it's Jimbo's talk page or some other heavily watched page, I usually don't bother--let someone else handle it. On the admin bits, I tend to stick to the non-controversial things, like deleting PRODs, blocking obvious vandals, and closing clearcut AfD's. I think I've only blocked one editor with more than a few edits, and never had anything overturned at DRV. Only using the bit for the routine maintenance that needs doing lets me be more productive. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Viva64 - thanks
Hey, thanks for finally getting rid of Viva64. That article has been bugging me for ages. --R27182818 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

WQA
Please note that I have raised a WQA in order to get independent views on your accusations of my edits being Wikilawyering and Disruptive Editing at Talk:Michael Jenkins (religious leader).—Ash (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, I think. I didn't accuse you of those actions, I informed you that your behavior constituted that, and advised you that if you persisted, you would face sanctions for that behavior. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Friendly reminder
This is just a friendly reminder to make sure you check the history of an expired PROD before deleting it. Earlier today, you deleted Rivalries in the National Football League as an expired PROD, which I've now restored. Four other active articles were split off of it (improperly documented, but I'll fix that shortly) and thus it couldn't actually be deleted unless all those articles where deleted first.

Also, you are supposed to make an independent judgment about whether a deletion is truly uncontroversial. I just don't see how an article with 1600 edits over 4 year could possibly be uncontroversial, regardless of the fact no one removed the tag in 7 days.

Have a nice day, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, that was an oversight on my part. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (461–480)
Please reconsider your premature close of this discussion. Such discussions are not resolved by counting heads and it seemed that the Keep opinions were all weak as they made little reference to either policy or the article in question. Many of them came from members of the Pokemon project who have a vested interest in the matter and so are not impartial. If the discussion were allowed to continue for the full time then a wider spread of opinion might be expected. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I have a hard time believing that, in light of all the historical drama that has surrounded pokemon (e.g., WP:POKEMON). While you were accused of a WP:POINT violation in the process, I think that a simple but dramatic misunderstanding of the list notability expectations is a more likely answer.  One barometer in that particular AfD is TenPoundHammer's keep !vote--TPH nominates much content, very appropriately, for AfD, so when he says that something is a keep, that's a very good indicator that consensus is likely against you. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A snow close requires more than likelihood; it requires certainty. And TPH's opinion seems to be a poor predictor of AFD outcomes. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your close, but I would not exactly say that all of TPH's AfD noms are appropriate. DGG (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify: I often oppose TPH's "delete" !votes, so when he swings by an AfD he didn't start to advocate keep, that makes me sit up and take notice. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As you seem unwilling to revert, the matter is now at DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Already commented there. I happened to be looking at the page already, thanks for posting here.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (2nd nomination)
user:King of Hearts relisted Orly Taitz yesterday, after an extremely contentious DRV, and you've already closed it as a keep. What's that about? I thought the point of relisting was for it to be relisted. If the closing admin's decision was simply going to be overturned, do it honestly: call it overturned and be done with it instead of pretending to relist. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the closer of the DRV, I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clearer, but the AfD is intended to run for 7 additional days. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As somebody who believes the article should be kept, I also think the AFD should be allowed to run for a minimum of 7 days, and so far it's around 5 days, with a large gap in the middle. This is an unusual case, given the problems with the initial close, makinga WP:SNOW close (if that's what's going on) less appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So, a bit of an explanation is in order. I've made it a habit to go through WP:AFD/Y and close relistings that really shouldn't have been relisted. A cursory review showed consensus to keep, (33 vs. 7 total, including 11 vs. 3 after the relisting, with a half dozen redirects) which appears to have a WP:SNOW chance of switching to delete. I must confess, I missed the date gap and the DRV notice, and didn't consider it in my close. As such, I've gone back through the entire debate much more carefully, and come to the following conclusions:

A no consensus outcome might be remotely possible if a large amount of canvassing were done, but the fact is, those arguing for the article to be kept have the stronger policy-based argument. Google News has hundreds of references for Taitz--many of which deal specifically with her--and she has no stated or implied intention of remaining a low-profile figure. Consider Salon, examiner.com, and the Washington Independent for starters--these are not articles about birthers which mention Taitz, they're articles about Taitz. Per SNOW, this is not an uphill battle--it's a done deal.

While everyone involved has my sincere apologies for inadvertently shortcutting the process and causing additional consternation, a keep is the only policy-based outcome. In fairness to the nominator and initial !voters, Taitz prominence appears to have been increasing rather rapidly, but the issue is and should remain settled. Any of you are welcome to take my close to DRV, but I cannot in good conscience reopen an AfD which cannot end otherwise without a serious de facto alteration of the policies under which I closed it. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess the SNOW will stand, since no one will WP:POINTlessly DRV it. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that isn't good enough. A DRV can have three outcomes relevant here: relist, endorse, or overturn. After a lengthy argument at DRV, user user:King of Hearts conculded that the consensus was to relist. By shutting down the relisting almost immediately, you have in effect said that no, KofH called it wrong, the result of the DRV discussion was to overturn. That's the upshot, because there's no practical difference between where we we stand now and where we would stand if the DRV had been called as overturn.


 * The consensus was to relist. This article should therefore be relisted, which it has not yet been in any meaningful sense. While I agree with KofH that DRV is not the right vehicle to deal with this mistaken close, I think it's fully appropriate (and not pointy) that since the consensus of DRV was to relist, the article be renominated for deletion so that it gets the relisting that DRV concluded it should have. Do you object? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be unwise. I'd suggest you either find an admin to reopen it (unlikely IMO) or send it to DRV.  A new AfD will likely get speedied in 24 hours or less and cause yet more drama.  The outcome of this AfD is pretty clear and I'd suggest you consider leaving it be for a few months. At that point I think everyone will have a lot more perspective... Hobit (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No admin in their right mind is going to risk wheelwar accusations by reopening the AFD, so that's not an option. DRV is unnecessary because we have already had a DRV! The result was to relist. Because this article was never relisted (it was reopened for a very brief period, which wasn't enough, and was never actually relisted), that relist mandate is still good. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And what point would relisting or reopening solve? Go look at the AfDs for Susan Boyle or Chesley Sullenberger.  People who show up on TV and in the press a lot and who are routinely kept at AfD despite large volumes of BLP1E arguments. I see no reasonable probability that this would end any differently if allowed to continue for any additional period whatsoever, especially considering the trajectory of Taitz' notability. Jclemens (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to relist. That's the point of relisting it. Your assumption that a keep is inevitable is the functional equivalent of a vote to overturn at the DRV, but that position did not carry the day. Relisting did. And what is more, overturn certainly did not command consensus; your premature closing that is even worse than the original close, because the original close could at least claim to have chosen between two plausible interpretations of the AFD, while yours enshrines the noe result that was plainly rejected by both the AFD and DRV. Delete may be off the table, but we didn't yet know whether keep and no consensus close would prevail.


 * I'm sorry to put to fine a point on this, but in the circumstances, I must. Frankly, it's very difficult to take seriously your protestation that this was an innocent error when you're trying to insulate so clearly flawed a decision rather than remedy it. The correct thing for you to do here would be to admit error (which you essentially have already done), revert yuor premature close, and relist. That spares everyone a needless fight about re-nomination or wheelwarring, it was the consensus at DRV, and you ought to do it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Two simple points: 1) the keeps were winning on numbers, and 2) the keeps were right on notability. If you want to look for conspiracy theories, be my guest, but not on this talk page.  I fail to see how any good faith interpretation of the debate and the underlying policies can come to any other conclusion than that Taitz is independently notable and should be kept as a separate article.  Process is a tool with which to arrive at the right outcome, so if you want to convince me to alter the outcome, you must comvince me the outcome was wrong--I've already admitted that I made an oversight in the process. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, you admit that you closed the debate early, you admit recognition that this was inappropriate, you admit that the close reflects your personal opinion as to the notability question at issue in the AFD, and you admit that the SNOW close was inappropriate (because "[i]f an issue is 'snowballed', and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause," and you have conceded the reasonableness of the objection). And with all that on the table you still refuse to make things right by reopening the AFD? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. No reasonable objection has yet been raised.  By that, I mean that no one, including yourself, has yet asserted that if the relisted AfD had been reopened to run for the full seven days, that the outcome would have been otherwise.  Count 'em yourself: 11 to 3, almost 4:1 in favor of keeping the article, in the time it was relisted.  I'm not sure what my "opinion" has to do with anything, unless there's an assertion that I misjudged the reliable sources available based on a personal bias.  Precedent in our handling of similar BLP1Es, the wording of notablity and BLP1E policies, the presence of current reliable sources, and the rate at which new reliable sources are being added all informed my decision. If you'd like to make a reasonable objection to these points, rather than to process or to person, feel free to do so. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's real simple. While it's unlikely that a delete would have followed, we have no idea whether this would have been a no consensus close or a keep had you not (by your own admission) prematurely closed the AFD, a close that by happy coincidence just happens to be in line with your own freely-admitted opinion on the merits of the debate. What's more, relist was the consensus of a long and contentious DRV discussion, which you have also set aside in favor of your own preferred result. And if SNOW was ever a proper basis for closing the debate early, it has now been shown to be otherwise, because reasonable objections that it was improper have been raised (the two I've just made, for example). Since you refuse to reopen, desipte acknowledgnig that you should not have closed, I am forced to relist in order to prevent your unilateral, improper, and (in light of your refusal to fix an error you admit to having made) it seems bad-faith squelching of the DRV mandate. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you have failed to raise a good faith objection to the outcome. Keep and no consensus do not result in a materially different outcome, and at no point did I admit "no consensus" as a reasonable outcome aside from large scale canvassing. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more points: 1) please... before posting or taking any other action, read WP:BURO. I'm sure it must be frustrating to realize that Wikipedia is not a court, but that's the way it is. 2) You have again raised an argument against the person.  Further arguments against the person are simply not welcome, will not be responded to, and may be construed as either incivil and/or disruptive. You are again admonished to argue against the outcome, not the process or the person. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with WP:BURO. I'm also familiar with WP:PIMP. And I have recently become more familiar with WP:GBU, whence I got refamilar with ANI. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Why don't you try and do something useful like improving Taitz' existing article instead of escalating pointless drama? Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotta say, when a DRV result is "relist", and you close it early even so, it shouldn't take a second DRV for you to reverse the decision. That's needless WP:BURO. If there weren't yet _another_ AfD running, I'd strongly urge you to just reverse your decision and re-open. As it is, I still think you should admit you did the wrong thing, instead of standing by it. Yes, it was a fairly clear keep, but there was significant debate going on, and it should have run the full length to let that debate complete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I read Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination) and saw the attacks on you. No harm was done; you were being bold and made a boo-boo.  I've made much worse mistakes as an admin.  You are still a good person. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Last words on the matter

 * I would say that I don't know what you get out of repeatedly lying about and misrepresenting what I have and have not said, but the answer is apparently that you get "off the hook" from it. We'll be seeing you, Mr. Garibaldi. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this is my talk page, I get the last word, and here is my summary of the whole affair:
 * 1) I made an out of process close by reading too fast and missing a previous DRV.
 * 2) Multiple people complained.
 * 3) I gave a detailed reason why the result was right despite the process error. This satisfied (not pleased, mind you) everyone except you.
 * 4) You started a third AfD which has been greeted with almost universal eyerolls and a chorus of deletes.
 * 5) You started a thread at ANI which failed to attract anyone thinking that my actions were sanctionable. Several said they were a bad idea, but not one person proposed sanctions, even in light of two editors with previous beefs against me crawled out of the woodwork to raise complaints for my past conduct.
 * 6) I was sufficiently bothered by conduct to request a review of it, which also led to no one finding anything actionable about your conduct.
 * 7) I demonstrated that there is no difference in policy between "keep" and "no consensus", which you did not find compelling but couldn't back up with any policy.
 * 8) You admitted there was no current possibility of the article being deleted in the new future.
 * 9) Other administrators got sufficiently sick of the dialogue that they closed the ANI thread.
 * Overall, I sincerely hope you've learned a lesson about how effective Wikilawyering is not. The third AfD will be closed as another keep, and Taitz will have an article as long as Wikipedia lasts, because an encyclopedia with notability and sourcing standards like ours must include an article on her, no matter how much you may not like it.
 * With the matter concluded, I think I'm going to go add some of the abundant sources to Taitz' article. In case you haven't researched my history (e.g., Murder of Robert Eric Wone), politically-motivated attempts (or actions that look like such) to suppress information motivate me to become involved in articles.
 * Again: my talk page, my last word. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Terezka Drnzik
Hi, I'm requesting this be undeleted. Terezka Drnzik is well known and respected in the Australian belly dance community and even has a radio interview archived at the National Library. http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/558648

Also this year she was invited to be a choreographer at the Australian Dance Festival.

http://site.auwebcenters.com/sydneysalsacongress/Terezkadrznik.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenig (talk • contribs) 12:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Next time, please be sure to start new threads at the bottom of my page; I failed to notice it at the top before now. Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen GA
Hey J,

Thanks for picking this one up. It's been sitting so long that I don't know if the original nominator is even paying attention anymore. :) I don't really have any time to work on it, as I am going to nominate Pool of Radiance as soon as I get another peer review that I've been promised and am waiting for. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If no one does anything positive to it in a week, it's getting failed from hold. Forward progress, even by someone else and no matter how slight, is cause to extend the hold.  Feel free to notify the nom if you think it might help, since I'd hate to simply fail it. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I notified the three users listed in the history before you, so I leave it up to them. :) BOZ (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Applebatch Page Help
Hello, Please tell me why the page was deleted as we believe it meets the requirements of wikipedia. We are an organization trying to help the education sector here in Chicago and have done many things that are worthy of mention by Chicago Public Schools, Teach for America, News Organizations and others. Please advise. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.69.239 (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was nominated for deletion, discussion on the matter was here, and it doesn't look like anyone stepped up to defend the article. To be kept, a website should meet the WP:WEB specific notability guideline.  This can be established by documenting non-trivial coverage in multiple independent (i.e., not connected with the organization) reliable sources.  Wikipedia is a place to describe things that have already made a noted impact on society, rather than an advertising venue for new or emerging things.  Please also review our conflict of interest guidelines as well.  Does that explain things? Jclemens (talk)

Talkback
— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Taitz education section
Hi, Jclemens! Do you think you might be able to chime in here? Thanks!!!! Basket of Puppies 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ hope that helped. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Exotic Magazine
I think it would be beneficial if Articles for deletion/Exotic Magazine was closed. The discussion has been relisted once and the result is clear, but the debate over whether the article should have been speedy deleted is getting very contentious. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I think I'm going to stay away from closing controversial AfDs for a while. The Copyvio text has been removed, there's not much left, so yes, the outcome may be pretty obvious, but I'm not particularly interested in intentionally stepping into hornets nests. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for taking a look at it. I'll see if I can get another admin to close it. The discussion between Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Tedder is getting too unconstructive. Cunard (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. I've seen a lot worse. "unconstructive" is a much lower bar to meet than "disruptive". Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:SgtAvestrand1956
For info, there is a rather longer sock list here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrse/Archive. Kevin (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

closes of continued discussion
You asked me for ongoing comment about your closes. When an article is relisted, people need time to respond. To go with the first comment after the relisting is not reasonable. There seems to be no consensus that a full 7 d. is necessary, but if, for example something gets no comments except the nom, and a single other person comments either delete or keep, this does not make consensus. I'd also suggest in situation where nobody at all comments after two or three relisting, the correct close is not keep, but no-consensus, for there was no consensus to do anything.  DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought I'd been closing most 2-3 relistings as no consensus unless there were no actionable keep !votes. In general, I'm looking at the unanimity, and level of interest.  If something's been delsort'ed for days, has 1-2 delete votes that articulate an appropriate policy reason behind each vote...  Most of the relistings I've been closing were not reasonable relistings.  For example, if NO ONE comments in the first 7 days, then an AfD ought to be closed, right there, as no consensus.  We're keeping too many "no one cares" AfD's open for too long, and it's my gut feel that the constant stream of things no one cares about is driving away !voters who look over all the AfD's and not just their pet topics.  The solution to that, assuming I've correctly diagnosed the problem, is fewer relistings, not more. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus
I am not sure but perhaps you do not wish references like "NA26, p. 440." It refers to the 26th deition of the Greek New Testament of Nestle-Aland. I gave full reference data in first using:
 * Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Barbara Aland and Kurt Aland (eds), Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th edition, (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1991), p. 440.

In every next using I used abbreviations, they are commonly accepted. "UBS3" - the same situation. Do you want full references in every usage? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issue with the abbreviations. I was simply suggesting another Wikipedia facility to make those references easier.  See Battle of the Line for an example of how I used rp to condense footnotes by preserving page numbers inside the text, rather than making each page number for each ref a separate footnote. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you give me two weeks? I need 1 week vacations. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. You might want to ask for some help from WP:GOCE before you leave--if someone's interested, they can probably fix most or all of the remaining issues with you. Jclemens (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DigiDrummer PROD removal
Please explain your reasoning for removing the PROD template from DigiDrummer, as this is usually the protocol for removing it. Thanks! Brian Reading (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gut feel that an AfD would be a more appropriate way to delete it. It advocates awards, and I didn't have time to do a search on it.  Remember, reasoning for PROD is optional: any user can remove a prod for any reason whatsoever, and any user can ask for a prodded article to be restored for any reason at all. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, but it's certainly not the best way to be going about it. Not doing a search, and just voting for keeping the article on a gut feeling wouldn't hold up in an AfD, and I think you're aware of that.  Thus, I'm not quite sure what your motive is. Brian Reading (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly fine way to go about it. Of course it wouldn't hold up in AfD--because PROD is NOT AfD, nor is it speedy.  It's a separate creature. Really, looking at how long the article has been around and how many other links it has, I'm surprised the article wasn't taken straight to AfD--PROD is much better for things that have been around less and have no evidence of interdependencies. Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alcoholic drinks in Britain
If you're interested.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz
Jclemens,

You have done a really good job with the Orly Taitz article. Why ruin all your good work by including information that is of marginal, if not dubious importance? It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article. It is all about what some nut has to say about her, which is not really appropriate for a biographical article (even for the biographical article of a person who is a nut in her own right). Just let it go so that we can get this article unprotected. It's really not worth fighting over. Yonideworst (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I really dislike people using WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE in "novel" (and that's being generous) ways to censor negative information about people. FRINGE is primarily about scientific theories, and UNDUE expects everything RS'ed to be covered... just proportionally.  I hold WP:NOTCENSORED to be among the most important attributed of Wikipedia.  It doesn't trump NPOV or V, of course, but it certainly trumps half-baked wikilawyering policy-shopping interpretations of those pillars. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you that removing the info based on WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE arguments is shaky, which is why I've been arguing on removing the info based on WP:N arguments especially for a WP:BLP. Just think if you were the subject of the Wikipedia article. Would you want what some nut had to say about you to be covered in your biography (whether it is on Wikipedia or read as a eulogy at your memorial service)? I hope you will agree to drop your insistence on inluding this stupid (IMHO) sentence that doesn't really add anything to the article. Yonideworst (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, Taitz is a public figure. Lots of people have said nasty and unflattering things about her, and most intelligent readers know that a certain amount of that is politically motivated.  A eulogy (check the etymology, if you don't read Greek) is fundamentally different than an encyclopedia article. BLP is an interesting, but prety tangential issue: Taitz isn't being accused of anything illegal, and what accusations that are there are reliably sourced.  I don't disagree that the conspiracy theory is stupid, but I do disagree that there's a policy-based reason for its removal.  If the others had started in with "It's trivial, I think we should remove it" instead of spouting off a bunch of red herrings and inappropriate citations of irrelevant policies, we'd be having a different conversation.  If you'd like to act the mediator and redirect the discussion away from those nonsense arguments, be my guest. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you accept WP:BURO? It's a stupid factoid that doesn't add anything to the article. By insisting on a policy to remove it you are turning Wikipedia into a bureaucracy. This factoid does not help the reader understand the person who is the subject of the biographical article. Just declare that although you think there is no policy prohibiting inclusion of this factoid you are willing to drop your insistence on its inclusion. That would immediately open up the article to editing again. Yonideworst (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Look, there doesn't need to be a governing policy, but I won't accept some illogical and unsupportable policy mumbo-jumbo that's just a thinly veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Go get the other two to drop their inane arguments and apologize for edit warring, and we'll have a nice cup of tea and a straw poll on whether to include it or not. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, since you are an administrator I expect a little more out of you. In my opinion, your statement
 * "If the others had started in with "It's trivial, I think we should remove it" instead of spouting off a bunch of red herrings and inappropriate citations of irrelevant policies, we'd be having a different conversation"
 * borders on WP:POINT. Would you PLEASE "declare victory and concede"? The important thing here is to write a great article. Not to prove that you were right and the others were wrong. I think you will agree with me that the addition of this fact does not make the article any better. Yonideworst (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to come here and discuss with me, but not accuse or insult me. If you feel like doing it again... just don't bother posting here.
 * Policies are important--that's why they're policies. There's nothing POINTy about refusing to consider baseless arguments.  Rather, it's an essential part of... well, governance, for lack of a better term.  Corrupt and shrill application of policies is actively disruptive to the encyclopedia, and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone, ever. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if you felt that I insulted you or acccused you of anything. That was not my point. I'm just telling you what I think your statements appear to be. If you don't believe me, re-read them in a month or so because you can't read them objectively during the heat of battle. Speaking of making accusations and insulting, you just accused the other editors of being "corrupt and shrill", and I would not be surprised if they would feel insulted if they read it. Yonideworst (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read it again. Which editors are accused of corrupt and shrill application of policy?  That's right: no one in specific.  That statement isn't linked to the discussion of Orly Taitz in the entire paragraph, it's solely responding to your comments. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I'm "corrupt and shrill"? If that's the case, this conversation is over. Yonideworst (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read it a third time. Do you see your name in there? I should hope not, because it's not there. Stop looking to apply general statements personally: if I ever decide to call your behavior (or anyone's, for that matter) disruptive, I will be absolutely clear about it. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True. You wrote that the arguments that were made were "corrupt and shrill", not the people who made the arguments were "corrupt and shrill". At this point, I don't really care whose arguments you think are "corrupt and shrill". All I want to say is that to call someone's arguments "corrupt and shrill" is equivalent to calling the person who made the arguments "corrupt and shrill".
 * Because we have diverged so much from the original discussion, I won't continue it. Yonideworst (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I look forward to seeing what develops on the article talk page. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Content Dispute
RE: TAz69x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been continuously vandalizing the fentanyl article with information that is not supported by references. This user was previously warned; however, he/she persists. Please deal with this accordingly. --Mishi4 (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly NOT a content dispute issue. This user has made previous attempts to fabricate information, to which he was warned by other administrators to refrain from this. This is NOT a new issue- it is continuous. Another admin is looking into this, and I prefer that. Thank you! --Mishi4 (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I heartily encourage you to post at ANI, like you did, rather than AIV for complex cases like that one. Is there any way I, as a non expert, can ascertain that the edits are in fact as you describe?  I someone adds a personal insult or a BLP violation to an article, that's a very quick verification that pretty much any admin can do at AIV.  Glad that someone is handling it. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

422nd Military Police Company
Could you find sources for this article? I tried looking for some and couldn't find any, even the article creator couldn't find any, and gave me a link with images of the police company. That is why I placed it for proposed deletion. Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 03:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 minute with Google News yields a hit. May not be a notable organization, but I'd prefer AfD to make that call, since it clearly exists. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:ORG, that is an acceptable proposed deletion.....Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 19:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, but I'm not an expert on the notability of military units, but I know we have a bunch of articles on such units. I won't vote to keep it in an AfD, I just didn't believe it appropriate to delete via PROD, when we have a very large MILHIST Wikiproject that might be a better judge of its notability.  If the AfD comes up "no consensus" due to a resounding lack of interest, come back here and I'll delete it. Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this
Responding to several comments over at the NOT talk page, based on the idea of "unencyclopedic" content, including yours, I put up a new section, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not on that talk page. Much of the "unencyclopedic" argument is a pet peeve of mine. It's a bit of a tangent to the main discussion, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added something that I hope contributes to the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Jclemens
Hello Jclemens, always good to see you around, I respect your hard work and dedication.

Please take a minute to sign your name to our list of 270+ members:
 * ARSM

Good news, we are building our first newsletter and should sent out this weekend, keep an eye out for it! Ikip (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, but I have a philosophical difference of opinion on ARS "membership"--I prefer to view ARS as something that every Wikipedian can and should participate in, much like 3O. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
P.S. According to Popups, you are at exactly 20000 edits all time, as of this post. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Thanks, I'm not perfect, but you calling me on goofs motivates me to be careful!  Yeah, I'm WAY over 20k edits counting deleted things...  Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page(s) for the Sandal page
Hi Jclemens, the Sandal (footwear) page was moved to Sandal, but Talk:Sandal (footwear) was left behind, while the Talk:Sandal was left as a redirect to Talk:Sandal (disambiguation). obviously, a mess. I removed the redirect from Talk: Sandal, and all that's left is a message from the RMbot. Do you think you could switch Talk:Sandal (footwear) to Talk:Sandal? — V = I * R  (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that--I swear I told it to move talk pages, too.... at any rate, done now. Feel free to drop me another note if there's anything else wrong. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It probably wasn't your fault, since the REDIRECT text was not the only text on the page. Anyway, it's all sorted out now, so no big deal. — V = I * R  (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow
You're fast. Thanks. I found a reasonable place for the information  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

University High School of Science and Engineering
Common Outcomes says that schools are normally found to be notable - this does not make them immune to other guidelines and policies or protect them from being deleted if, say, they're a seething mass of spam. Ironholds (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Feel free to stubbify the article in the process of taking the spam out. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

KGB (USSR) page
Hello again Jclemens, I've got one other issue to bring to your attention. There's not really any great urgency to this, but the consensus at Talk:KGB (USSR) seems to be overwhelmingly clear that the page moves made which created the current problem were tendentious, and that the page needs to be returned to KGB. When you get a moment, could you straighten that out? Thanks! — V = I * R  (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mangroomer
Hi, I'm wondering why you declined the G11 speedy on this? G11 reads "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" and I believe this article squarely fit the bill. Removing the promotional material would leave a stub without any assertion of notability, which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Is there something I'm missing here?  Them From  Space  06:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It asserts multiple reliable sources, and it doesn't tell you where to go out and buy one. To some extent, any description of a product includes its features, the problems it is designed to solve, etc. Would an encyclopedia never cover such a product?  I don't see it, hence declining G11. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I still disagree with you on the reading of the guideline, but I understand your position. I prodded the article, lets see how that goes.  Them From  Space  06:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I'm not going to contest the prod, I just didn't think it was sufficiently unambiguous for speedy. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

 * Thanks! I can never figure out which to use, affect or effect. Ikip (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's 4, 2 nouns and 2 verbs:
 * To affect something is to influence it ("The bloodstain affected her reaction to the tapestry")
 * To have an effect on something is to change it (note: passive voice) ("special effects")
 * To effect something is to accomplish a change. ("He effected his escape by means of the rope ladder...")
 * An affect is a displayed emotional response ("flat affect")
 * What's most confusing is that if you change from a verb to a noun, you often have to change from a to e or vice versa. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
I re added the speedy deletion template at Pangu_utility because the person who removed it is the same person as the creator of the article. --Rockstone (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ibuypower
Why was the page deleted? I felt like the last iteration I created made it neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolpeacehomie (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it existed solely to promote sales, as a textbook G11? The fact that it had been deleted multiple times before for similar reasons factored into my decision. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing the page so that it offers a more neutral view, yet it gets speedily deleted. Is there any way I can show you the draft so that you cuold point out the issues with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolpeacehomie (talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can try constructing it in userspace (e.g., User:Lolpeacehomie/Sandbox), but you don't answer the fundamental objection--that your attempt to create a page is a WP:COI designed to drive sales. If there was no COI, would such an article be created? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

wouldn't velocity micro's wikipedia page be more of a COI? i've seen their page and they list all of their awards claiming that their systems are high end. I would agree that some of the content is designed to drive sales but i've changd it significantly. I am trying to model it after alienware's wiki as I believe they offer a good neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolpeacehomie (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Push Play
Earlier today, you speedily deleted Push Play per CSD:A7. Since then, someone recreated it...there are a couple of sources, but nothing particularly reliable. This band will probably be notable at some point, but I don't think they are yet, so you might want to take another look and speedily delete again if you're around. MirrorLockup (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I love the diagram at the top of your user page. MirrorLockup (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I AfD'ed it so we'll have some finality one way or the other. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An AFD is the right thing to do, thank you JClemens! Fribbler (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Dear Jclemens, thank you for your effort on Wikipedia.

Earlier, the page for Aston Lloyd was deleted. It was not created to drive sales and may I ask if you have any insight as in what should be avoided in the text for our page to continue to exist on Wikipedia? We tried to follow what Obelisk International has done. Many thanks for your response in advance. --Fredagordon (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, here's how I handle speedy deletions in ~98% of cases, including this one:
 * Some other editor flags an article as a candidate for speedy deletion
 * I evaluate that article against the specific criteria. If it does, it is deleted.  If it does not, I remove the deletion tag.  In rare cases, the listed reason does not apply, but another deletion reason clearly applies--in those cases, I may delete an article for a different reason than was originally specified.
 * But what I don't do is go looking for existing articles that are promotional, ads, hoaxes, non-notable bands, etc. That's a different function, and one that I don't do anymore.  Thus, I'm neither going to keep your article because other stuff exists, nor go looking for similar articles that meet similar criteria for deletion.
 * What I CAN do is move copies of deleted articles into userspace, where they can be modified and improved, and give some advice on what it would take to modify the article such that it would not meet that deletion criteria in the future. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks we will modify it. --Fredagordon (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Exinda Deletion and Unprotection Request
Dear Jclemens,

Early the page for exinda -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exinda -- was speedily deleted even though I had requested time to correct the copyright issues which were flagged by the Wikipedia bot and to submit letters of copyright release from Exinda's senior management. Now the page has been protected because it has repeatedly been deleted. My intention is to provide a factual, non-promotional account of a company and I have again revised the proposed page content to ensure this. I must say it is frustrating to have one's listing immediately flagged for deletion literally in the midst of creating it and to have it deleted entirely only one day later. May I request that you unprotect the page so that we can recreate? I'd also welcome any advice on how to ensure that the listing is not reflagged. I am a new Wikipedia user/creator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hass2009 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And here's, for completeness' sake, a link to all the previous advice handed out to Exinda: User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 16. I believe every possible instruction and advice in order to solve the copyright problems has already been furnished, many times. MLauba (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear MLauba (and Jclemens), I have reviewed the instructions at the links below, some of which pertain to a previous entry that I had no involvement in, but just to clarify, Exinda is prepared to provide permission to share the copyrighted material in question, however in the previous two attempts, Wikipedia deleted the entry before Exinda could review the entry and provide their emails of consent. How can they send you an email consent (with a link to the Wikipedia page and materials) when the page is deleted? I'm sorry, but I'm confused: I assumed I could post the proposed entry, have Exinda review and then consent? I also made changes to paraphrase content in my own words yesterday, and requested a standby or holdon on deletion, but the entry was still deleted... Respectfully, Hass2009 —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC).
 * I believe the difficulty stems from the fact that in order to protect Wikipedia against possible claims of copyright infringment, we are bound to remove copied content from display upon being made aware of it. As long as your organization's processes (based on previous exchanges I believe you to be an employee of Exinda, if I'm mistaken please accept my apologies) require a review of the material before granting permission, we are in a situation which may be difficult to unlock.


 * Moving forward, I suggest two possible courses of action: Since the material which was causing issues so far is taken directly from Exinda's corporate website, Exinda can provide permission to use this content per WP:PERMISSION without seeing the wikipedia result. Once this is received by WP:OTRS, the page's last deleted version will be reinstated and freed up for editing.


 * Alternatively, you could simply rewrite an article from scratch, without copy / pasting from the corporate website, in your user space (for instance at User:Hass2009/Exinda) and then request the Exinda page to be unprotected at Deletion Review.


 * If you chose to take the latter route, please be aware that copy/pasted material in user space is subject to the same restriction as in article space. The best way would be to simply forget that copy / paste exists in the first place :).


 * Apologies if this has become a bit of an athletic race for you. If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to respond either here or on my talk page. MLauba (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, MLauba is correct. Once there is either a Deletion Review decision to allow recreation OR any admin evaluates a userspace article and finds it to be compliant with copyright law, the protection can be removed.  No one is trying to make your life difficult, just make sure Wikipedia scrupulously respects every copyright holder's right to their own work; respect for copyright law is part of what makes Wikipedia possible. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MLauba, that makes the process MUCH more clear! I really appreciate it. All best, User:Hass2009/Exinda —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC).
 * I took the liberty to go ahead and create a stub in your user space above to get you started. For discussing the latter, I suggest moving over to my own talk page and letting J. Clemens retain control of his talk page :) MLauba (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dada Gujar
I had created a page on Dada Gujar which was deleted stating G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://revegujars.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35 I actually wanted to let you know that the article on the forum is a citation of award received by Dr. Dada Gujar and has no copyrights. I am his grandson and can vouch for the same. Please give this a second look and let me know in case you need any clarifications. Please undo the deletion of the article. (130.245.204.22 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Feel free to recreate it, making clear that the citation material is quoted. While you may think that the award citation has no copyright, under U.S. law even the wording of such an award may be copyrighted.  Make sure you quote from it appropriately, with references, while making most of the article unique, and things should be fine.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Press TV
A good number of additional sources are posted over at WP:RSN as background to the Press TV matter. I havent seen you comment there over the past few days and you might want to see some of this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You should have put that in on Taitz' talk page. Full protection is up soon, but it's clear there's plenty of RSing for the theory, appropriately worded and attributed. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Electoral jew2
WHY IS MY ARTICLE AND ACCOUNT DELETED? WHO ARE YOU?! PLEASE RESPOND!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.58.205 (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ account blocked for vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System
Man, that was painful to split. On the other hand, do you think the child article would pass GA? If so, could you do a quick review if/when the parent article is passed? JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it will. Go ahead and nominate it right away, and I'll handle it next.  Sorry for the pain, but you're likely going to get 2 GA's out of it--without "gaming" the system in any way.  Find another 1-2 relevant articles to promote to GA, and you should have a Good Topic, too! Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You got it. My mission is to get Trans-Alaska Pipeline System up to FA, so any comments in that direction would be helpful. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The lede has been expanded. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! If I come up with a third article (probably the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act), I'll drop you a note. Have a good one! JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Orly Taitz
Hello. I notice that you have nominated Orly Taitz as a Good Article. However, looking at the quick-fail criteria, the article does not appear to be stable (due to edit wars) and appears to have a number of other problems. Is there any reason why you think this article should not be failed? Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stability is not as bad as the recent full protection would make it out to be. I'd recommend simply leaving it, if that's the only quickfail concern, until it's been sufficiently stable for a while. What other concerns do you have? Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the page history the article has never been "stable", including one deletion, one deletion review, and two further AfD's. The talk page shows that since you have nominated the article, there continues to be serious questions about the content, sources and neutrality.  Quite frankly, it appears that the article fails at least four of the five quick-fail criteria.  Looking at the article, I can't help but notice how attempts to address neutrality have been couched in terms of "media reaction" to Taitz as a person, rather than the analysis and reaction to her ideas, and I find this deliberate skewing of NPOV highly deceptive. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's your right to quick fail it if you want, but I'd rather have a reviewer who's interested in actually helping to develop the article to reach GA--your statement above doesn't seem to express that sort of an approach. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How does my critical appraisal of the failings of the article reflect my lack of interest or inability to develop the article? My concern here is with your original nomination.  The article isn't stable or neutral and is nowhere ready for GAN.  I'm still not clear why it was nominated in the first place.  I never said I was going to fail the article; Rather I remain curious why you think it shouldn't be failed. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have concerns with your interpretation of NPOV, as expressed in the previous reply. NPOV means we say what RS say, not that we take an independent look at the subject.  Likewise, your interpretation of "stability" is substantially more strict than required by WP:WIAGA--For example, neither AfD resulted in serious textual change to the article itself, until I recused myself from the latest one and started improving the article, and what changes there have been have largely been collegial, except for a couple of dedicated POV pushers.  As far as whether it's ready for GA yet... of course it's not.  Articles should be nominated when they're close and improving, because it can take months for someone to get around to reviewing them.  If you find it insufficiently stable, simply pass it by, and by the time someone else gets around to it, it'll be that much more stable and ready. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that you may have taken offense with some of my comments on Talk:Orly Taitz. In the interests of fairness and in an attempt to "reboot" the discussion, please feel free to refactor the discussion to your preference.  This means removing comments I may have made that could be misconstrued as personal attacks or offensive.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we just hat the entire discussion? I agree to such a reboot, accept your apology and in return apologize for any of my actions which have contributed to the exacerbation of the situation. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you, but I must take responsibility here for agitating you. My words and tone came off far more acerbic than I intended, and in the future I need to pay closer attention.  I see now that there were several alternate ways I could have presented my points in a more civil manner. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's more than sufficient. Now, let's go to work on the article.  I've un-GAN'ed it, archived the talk page, and I would like your consent that it's balanced before it's renominated. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One way to unintentionally achieve balance is to try to expand the article as much as possible, and then later, cut back the fluff in the review or in discussion. You can also try expanding the lead section, which doesn't really summarize the article or describe reactions to her views.  Criticism and so-called "media reception" should be incorporated whenever possible (rather than appearing in stand-alone sections).  The article doesn't need detailed discussion like you propose on the talk page, but rather the highlighting and addressing of important, main points.  You're at 15 kB of prose size right now, and I wouldn't expect it to go above 30 to pass GA, but right now, it does seem a bit thin.  I'm going to stay away from the article for another day to clear my head. Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help me improve this article
Hello Jclemens, I am the creator and main editor of jafilia an article that you surveyed on June 2009. There where many issues that I have been looking forward to solve, please revisit the article and give me some advice to keep improving, thank you.--Yosu2010 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, but all I did was look at the nomination for speedy deletion and decline to delete it, because the csd-a7 doesn't apply to software articles. I'll take a look and try and give a few recommendations. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

re User:Viriditas
Hi. I would advise you that I have unbanned the above editor from pages relating to Orly Taitz, including contributors talkpages, per my notice at Viriditas' talkpage. Should you wish to pursue a topic ban I request that you take it through normal procedures and allow the community to determine whether one is appropriate, and to what level. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC) For further related discussion on this matter, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I have noted my actions in this matter there, should you wish to question them generally also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard suction hose
I see you have very recently added a bit on couplings. The article has certainly improved considerable during August whilst we have been working on it. Actually, I don't think the article is a black & white "pass" or a black & white "failure"; its in a rather merky "grey" marginal pass / marginal fail situation. I'd rather pass it than fail it; but I'm warry of passing it and letting the standards slip. But either way it will be passed or failed in the next couple of hours. Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm sorry forward progress has been getting more difficult.  I've been staring at the article and references and such for so long my eyes are crossing.  Again, no hard feelings if you fail it, since it has come so far it's certainly been a worthwhile investment. Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick question for you. I've been reading the UK Fire service manual as I was intending to add a few minor referenced facts. UK terminology seems to express importance on volume flow rate rather than pressure. Hoses appear to be selected to give a flow rate based on the Iowa Rate of Flow Formula. Is that the way it is done in the US (for UK flow rate in litres per minute = 4/3 x compartment volume in cubic metres) with variations for the "construction"/use? Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Around here most nozzles have a "working pressure" range, and the pump operator's job is to adjust for height differences, friction loss, etc. to try and maintain that pressure at the nozzle for the firefighters. Targeted delivery of water in gpm (lpm, I expect) is primarily based on the hose diameter--with friction loss, pressure won't really allow too much variance in the maximum flow rates. FWIW, I added a couple more interesting facts I just found sources for. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll postpone a decision for 24 hours (but we try for a "pass"). I'm seeing tables of maximum distances between pumps for 7 bar pumps, for various hose diameters (some twined some not) and required flow rates (typically 400 to 4500 litres per minute). As you say, friction losses means a trade off big/long hose lengths or smaller/shorter hose lengths. Also, as its a manual lots of worked examples: 960 litre/minute to put out a fully developed fire in a 20 m x 12 m x 3m single compartment (Iowa formula). Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I get all of that (excep I don't speak the units natively), but I'm not sure how much of that has to do primarily with this article. I'd love to improve the rest of the sucky/inadequate fire service articles with some of it, though. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus
I have problem with finding user, who can help with copyediting the article (perhaps the article is too long). No answers (except one). Someone promised to do this in the future, but probably he has not time. Is it too hard stylisticly? It has not grammar errows (I think). Only this is a problem. Someone has some objections to the lead. What do you think about the lead. Teplates to the references I will give from time to time (too much references to do it qyicly), but as you said it is not important. I am looking alos for some images (two or three). It was mentioned about some material supplemented in the 15th century, but it does not belong to the original codex, they are classified separately. Sometimes I have problem with English, that why I do not try for FA nomination (but it is good expierence). What do you think about all of these? Is it not enough? What the article needs now? With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can copyedit for you, but then I'd have to step out of the GA reviewer role. Hmm.  Let me think on this and see if I can recruit someone who might help. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not know that. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm seeking confirmation of my understanding at WT:GAN--if people think it's OK for me to do it, I'll go ahead and help. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Spike Industries Inc
I am curious to as why you declined the PROD on Spike Industries Inc. There is some news coverage on a Spike Industries, but I'm not sure it is even the same company. It is very hard to tell anything from the article as it is written.

In any case, I declined a speedy deletion on it since you had already declined prod. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did it because it was suffering from an unreasonable plethora of tags. I left a note for the tagger that it simply wasn't helpful to add so many tags that they took up an entire screen.  If you really think it should go, feel free to delete it via PROD anyways--the decline was not based on the merit of the article, but the overzealous application of tags.  Call it a personal protest against the practice. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was mostly just curious. It's at AfD now (not by me), so that will decide it.
 * In any case, I do agree excessive tagging is not helpful and regularly reduce the amount of tags on an article myself. I doubt there is ever a need for more than about 5 tags since most are variations on the same theme and are meant to specify the exact problem, not be used to point that it is "biased", "COI", "puffery", "POV", and uses "peacock words" for example. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I told the editor who'd done it that I could never see more than SIX being used, but in general, more than four are rarely beneficial--and not just because they overlap like you pointed out, but because you can miss the important tags ("unreferenced") in a sea of trivial or unspecific ("cleanup") ones. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um.... the tagging and the prod had nothing to do with each other. I didn't add any of the tags, but I did prod it for a totally valid reason. I fail to see your logic in removing the prod to punish the overtagging. This is one of the strangest reasons for contesting a prod I've seen. Fences  &  Windows  02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So next time you prod something, trim the tags if you're so inclined. I saw that the prodder and tagger weren't the same time, but decided that the prodder had has and not taken an opportunity to reduce the tags to a reasonable level.  Flimsy, perhaps, but I view it kind of like an exclusionary rule: poor conduct anywhere in the chain of proposing deletion is sufficient justification to invalidate the process. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see the logic. I know prods can be contested for any reason, but deprodding for this reason seems to be a bit spiteful and to be attempting to prove a WP:POINT. By all means trim the tags, but your dislike of overtagging is irrelevant to whether articles should be deleted or not. Fences  &  Windows  18:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For it to be a WP:POINT it would have to be disruptive. It is certainly negative reinforcement, but since PRODs can be declined for any reason whatsoever, it's pretty difficult to conceive of a way that it could be a POINT issue, even if you don't agree with the logic behind it. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Used a wheelchair
Hi Jclemens. Schmirius(contribs) has edited a couple dozen articles changing "confined to a wheelchair" to "used a wheelchair" without apparent regard for context. I'm glad to see you changed it back in Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) as I agree that the edit weakened the prose. You commented that you "agree in general about the term". I don't know that I can even go that far as it looses the distinction between those who have limited mobility (are only able to take a few hundred steps a day after knee replacement surgery, for example) and use a wheelchair to extend their range and those who have no mobility at all without their wheelchair, the latter being those for whom the phrase is traditionally used. I'm still trying to sort this out and invite your input at User talk:Schmirius. -- Thinking of England (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I suspected it might have been something of the sort.  While I'm sympathetic to the larger issue, work obligations preclude me getting too involved at this point.  Best wishes in the discussion--may it be civil and productive. Jclemens (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've raised the question over at the village pump, WP:VPM. I've notified Schmirius and hope that he will join the discussion there. -- Thinking of England (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Journalism
Would you take a look at and comment on the article called Conspiracy journalism?

No such phrase exists any English language dictionary I consulted and - other than this article and one other place in wikipedia where it was used to describe a living individual in the Conspiracy Theory article - this phrase appears nowhere in the Google database (with the exception of two sites that re-published the wikipedia article.)

The author of the Conspiracy journalism article has responded to my rationale for removing the article and stated his rationale for this article's continued existence. I think it would be helpful if another party took a look and commented. Thanks. Nolatime (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Nolatime


 * I just came across this and believe it could be relevant to this situation:


 * "A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.[4] The general restriction against POV forks applies to article names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming


 * I think it's fair to say that the author of Conspiracy journalism has been party to many disputes of fact and POV on the subject of who is and who isn't a conspiracy theorist.  The one instance where the term "conspiracy journalist" has been used in a wikipedia article, it was used to describe a living person who the author of Conspiracy journalism has demonstrated a keen interest in characterizing as a conspiracy theorist. Nolatime (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

re: Overtagging
Hi, Thanks for letting me know about my overzealous tagging, and I'm sorry it caused any problems in proposed deletion discussions. I'm a newbie, so please forgive my asking what might seem like a dumb (or at least naive) question. Why would the number of tags an article has received matter in a deletion decision? Specifically, if I messed up by putting too many tags in an article that would have been approved for deletion had (at least some of) the tags not been there, what is the rationale in allowing the article to escape deletion because the tags do exist?

When I come across articles that have many issues, especially when they are written by new editors, my thinking thus far has been to flag all obvious issues at once and, ideally, try to explain in the article or user talk page how to resolve the issues. In some cases, I even try to help improve the article itself. The reason I had been taking this approach is that I think such direct feedback is a good way for new editors to learn about authoring in Wikipedia (though I think most editors eventually read the welcome and getting started information they get in their welcome messages, I don't think the majority of new editors do this before posting their first article. (And, not everyone receives a welcome message right away.) Also, I think it would be demoralizing to get a few tags, fix the issues the tags described, and then get even more tags. I had assumed it would be better to know all of the (known) issues upfront, in part so that an editor doesn't feel as if, no matter what they do, their article is always going to be tagged for something, and so that, when possible, multiple issues could be addressed at once in the course of the post-tagged edits. On a related note, for articles that do end up being deleted, I know that, as an editor, I'd like to know what all of the issues in a deleted article were, so I can try to avoid introducing the same mistakes into my next articles.

I agree that a COI tag is not necessary in what's clearly an autobiography. I included it with Spike Industries because the article was about a business, was all over the place and changing frequently. In one version, the editor used some first-person language that gave it away, and then he described himself as being part of the organization. It just so happened that his username matched the name he used in the article. I tagged it because I wasn't sure if the admins would have time to wade through all the history, or what state the article would be in after subsequent revisions. Plus, since the user was a newbie, I wasn't sure if they were as familiar with the COI, NPOV, and so on guidelines.

For the Valentine Nonyela article, I assumed it was an autobiography, but wasn't positive because I've seen fans choose usernames very similar to the names of the people they are fans of (and usually end up writing about). From now on, in such cases, I'll assume "autobiography" and leave it at that.

Anyhow, I just wanted to explain the rationale that led to my overzealous tagging. I'm sorry for any hassle or annoyance it caused, and I will keep an eye on my tagging in the future.

I'd appreciate if you could explain why you felt declining to delete an article was appropriate due to overtagging because the concept seems a bit counter-intuitive to this newbie. Thank you for reading my novella, and for bringing the overzealous tagging to my attention. Thank you! Hananekosan (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD
In response to your comment here, it should be enough to point out that the article was mass created by one user in a serious of mass edits which has brought them under criticism for not ensuring notability before hand. There is no actual content on the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, Blofeld does that. That doesn't mean he only creates articles on things that shouldn't have articles.  I'm not opposed to stubs of things that should have articles, since they serve a valuable function as a starting point to which other editors (including IP addresses, who can't themselves start articles) can add content. In most cases, I'd rather see stubs than redlinks. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the only source of information right now besides IMDB, and each equally state nothing on the movie. There is a difference between a stub and a one line statement that summarizes the whole thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which is why I only commented, rather than !voting keep. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright before 1964
If you are running around doing things like deleting James Pieronnet Pierce you need to learn this. The entry is even older than that being dated 1922.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Before_1964 Before 1964

Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form on or after January 1, 1923, and prior to January 1, 1964, had to be renewed during the 28th year of their first term of copyright to maintain copyright for a full 95-year term.[13]

With the exception of maps, music, and movies, the vast majority of works published in the United States before 1964 were never renewed for a second copyright term.[

RichardBond (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That specific articlename doesn't link to anything, so I'm assuming I made an erroneous speedy deletion. Please accept my apologies and feel free to recreate the article and/or link me to the exact article name so I can restore it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I added links and additional information much of the text for JPP does come from Traugott's "Santa Clara" however that work is currently public domain. RichardBond (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, restored. You will probably want to keep working on the article--wikifying it and whatnot--so that it fits in better with the tone of the rest of the encyclopedia.  While it's not a copyvio, it still could probably stand to be improved. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

YOu should be aware, the material was deleted because it was a direct plagiarism of the original, not because it was in the public domain or not. It was outright plagiarism, and saying the article incorporated elements is not sufficient. As it stands, it's still outright plagiarism. ThuranX (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism how? The article as it stands now clearly articulates its source--albeit in an attribution section, rather than a typical set of Wikipedia references. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because even if attributed, it's still plagiarism when the entire thing's a lift, unless you pretty much say: Book X says: "QUOTE LONG TEXT", but even then, it's still not particularly ethical to include it here in that form. That article ought to be distilled down, and other sources incorporated, instead of quoting paragraphs on end from it, then altering a few words here and there. Consider WP:PLagiarism, point 2 - any quoted material should be marked as such and directly cited. That's not done here, though about the only difference obvious after a couple paragraphs of comparison is that section titles were added for each paragraph. I'd be happy to bring this matter to the proper WP page for review, but there doesn't seem to be one. ThuranX (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, I'd suggest WP:CP. It may not strictly be a copyright problem, but I trust the folks there will still sort it all out. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take it there. One final question first - did RichardBond present any proof that the book has entered the public domain? ThuranX (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just what you see here. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello Jclemens. My posting on the NRA was NOT vandalism. You allege that my posting on the NRA entry was vandalism when in fact it is true. Can you look at it and possibly review it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2hot4burqa (talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'll look at non-partisan, you will notice that the NRA is one of the nonpartisan organizations explicitly listed there. But more importantly, your account has been around for well over a year and don't seem to have made any positive contributions to anything.  You've made other edits which were reverted as original research or vandalism, and a cursory inspection of your history showed nothing that was clearly a net positive to Wikipedia: that's why you got a long-term abuse warning. If you'd like to continue using this account, please make future contributions decidedly positive. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jclemens. My posting in regards to the NRA being "partisan". Well I've found a reliable, authentic and fully-verified source to prove that the NRA is indeed partisan as it has donated more money to the Republicans and its members are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2hot4burqa (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And the AFL-CIO funnels more money to Democrats. Go read non-partisan; just because an org tends to support one party more frequently doesn't make it partisan. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So, the NRA endorses every Republican presidential candidate. Wouldn't that make it partisan even though groups are supposed to focus on their cause instead of meddling in political affairs. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135308,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2hot4burqa (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to seek consensus for such a change Talk:National Rifle Association would be the place to do that. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Centre for Research on Globalisation
Saw you just deleted this. I am not sure it was a valid G4, as it may not have been substantially identical. Just after the last AfD, I wrote this to the deleting admin giving some additional sources as I had promised in the AfD, but did not have time to add to the discussion before it closed, and he replied here, suggesting recreation as a possibility. I believe I added some of these sources to the article as ELs or on the talk page afterward, as someone else had recreated the article in the interim. Regards, John Z (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, if you'd like a copy of what was deleted, I can provide that to you as a userified copy. I recommend inserting those sources in your userspace copy, and then talk to the original closing admin, showing him or her the improvements to the article.  Odds are, they may directly approve putting it back into mainspace as an article.  In some cases, they may require the community's input at a deletion review (DRV).  At any rate, that's how I recommend we proceed with trying to establish an encyclopedic article on that org. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete Vishal (name)
You deleted Vishal (name) for blatant copyright violation citing as the source. I believe the opposite is the case, and if you look at what is there you will see links in its text pointing at wikipedia just like in wikipedia. If you were checking the date you might have been confused because Vishal (name) was copied from Vishal when Vishal was made a disambiguation page. I did not write the original text, it was written in 2006 so it is possible it is a copyright violation but I don't believe the cite shows that happening.. Dmcq (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. I think there was a talk page Talk:Vishal (name) which hasn't been restored, could you do that too please if so? I think it probably only contained a header saying the history is at Vishal because that was split but might as well follow the guidelines about splits. Dmcq (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, not much there, but it's restored. Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. User talk:Durova says the problem was the page was a recent branch and he compared the dates of the article setup and the web link. Dmcq (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Durova's pretty senior and trustworthy, but I can see how an article rename would screw her up. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment at AfD
Hi. I removed your comment from the Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots AfD as it only added to the heat and didn't actually add to the debate. Please revert me if you wish, but I would ask you to reconsider the post before you do. I hope you don't think this is personal, as I only realised we had been previously involved afterwards. In fact I will restore your comment to show my good faith, but I ask you to consider removing or refactoring it. Yours, Verbal chat  21:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So an uninvolved party coming in and telling both sides of a deletion discussion they're wasting time and being unproductive is... unproductive? I don't mind your commenting on it, but I admit I'm surprised that anyone would consider deleting it.  I think the AfD is an excellent showcase of how deletionists and inclusionists can both try to "win" and nothing is improved.  I was intending it to be a pretty broad critique of the entire process, neither directed at either side nor at any editor in particular. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Subject: International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI)
Hello Jclemens. You deleted a page that I have created International Journal of Computer Science Issues. The reason you point out was "copyright infringement". I confirm that there is no copyright infringement, that IJCSI is willing to have a page about it here in Wikipedia for the 1st time. Kindly restored the deleted page. If needed I can ask the editor to email you for authentication purposes. Please treat as urgent. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijcsi editor (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have essentially two choices. You can either donate the copyrighted content or make a page that doesn't substantially use or closely paraphrase their site. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

About deletion of the Zafira (actress) stub
I do not agree with the SD of the Zafira (actress) stub. Actually I wrote it, and a bit later complemented it somewhat, following the stubs for other actors/actresses cited in the article where she was mentioned. I ask, with all due respect, why those other studs, e. g., Sophie Moone or Claudia Rossi, have not been deleted? By your standards, they also fail to indicate the importance or significance of the person. Lcgarcia (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. They weren't nominated, and I don't go hunting for things to delete, I just make judgements on things that other people nominate.  In that particular case, I read the talk page, and avoiding a redlink is not really a sufficient reason to keep such an article. If you have more info on her career, feel free to restart the article, or I can fetch you a copy to work on in your userspace if you want. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I take it. I am not a very active author, but once in a while I write stubs and articles or complement existing ones. Most of my contributions, though are fixing or creating links, including interwiki, or making punctuation or grammar corrections, which I also do in the esWP and deWP. This is the first time that something I have written is deleted, which took me with my guard down, so to speak. But I have learned. So please send me the deleted stub, perhaps I will take the time to complement it. Thanks. Lcgarcia (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it's now at User:Lcgarcia/Zafira (actress). Good luck, and do mind WP:BLP issues if you're dealing with sources on a porn actress. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have a minute.......
We don't always agree, but I've always felt like you take a balanced approach. I was hoping you'd take a minute to look over the article Crime in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Something about it just doesn't feel right. I has reliable sources for some of it (like the crime stats), but uses unsourced info (like the long list of gangs supposed to be there). The whole article gives me the feel like it is POV to cast the city in a negative light. My instinct is to call if POV SYNTH, but I might be totally off base on this, so I was hoping to get a second opinion. My inclination is take the crime stats, merge it to the article on Allentown and pretty much scrap the rest. What is your take on it? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, POV and SYNTH may be a bit iffy, but WP:BURDEN is not. After I went through and excised every unsourced statement from the Crime in Allentown, Pennsylvania article, there was less left than what was in Allentown, Pennsylvania, so I redirected it.  What's left there still feels a little iffy to me.  Suspiciously, not one single reference cited is online for verification.  I should be able to get back on ProQuest tomorrow (I hate college breaks--plenty of time to do Wikipedia research, and they change the passwords) and see what I can find.  I'm suspecting that some of what's there may not really be supported by the references alleged.
 * Oh, and always feel free to come to me for encyclopedia-building topics. I agree with no one all the time, not even me, but as long as I'm hanging around here, I'm here to build an encyclopedia with anyone else who's willing to collaborate on it. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To respond...
Went to bed and the WT:AfD discussion went a little mad, so I hope you don't mind if I respond here. You wrote: ''That's a good clarification. Sometimes, I feel like when I point out everything wrong with every !vote that's inaccurate, it just prompts the partisans (often the nom--almost never the drive-by !voters whose analysis I impeach) to contest my comments. At what point is a rebuttal enough? I presume you read "notes to closing admin" posts? Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC) ''

I read everything in a debate. When someone puts in "Note to closing admin, I added sources at this point" or words to that effect, that prompts me to re-weigh the comments prior to that, and I will probably wander over to the article to examine what's gone on, and I will use my judgement. I use my judgement a fair old bit (for what it's worth) in examining consensus anyway because it isn't as simple as a vote count, no matter how much some people want it to be! Examining the article in such a case is fine because it is a factual verification: were sources added to the article or not? The problem comes if I go to the article to examine the validity of the arguments. Imagine an evenly split debate, fairly typical, of notable vs. not notable arguments, with no arguments stronger on one side than the other. Now, if I go to the article and read it, and decide it's not notable, should I delete it? Policy and our guidelines follow practice - what we do defines policy, not the other way around. So whilst I could easily IAR, decide the material should be deleted and do so, someone will take me to DRV, and in practice, I will be overturned. So why waste everybody's time? I guess my point is, if the community wants admins to go and look at the article and weigh the deletion discussion according to their own assessment of the article, then they have to let us - at the moment, it is not practicable. The answer to the problems described is greater participation, and making deletion less of a big deal through userfication and the like. Sorry for the ramble - hope something coherent appeared Fritzpoll (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, and thanks for taking the time to post it here. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Generation F
The version deleted as PROD before was completely different, and deleted for a different reason. Could you reconsider the undeletion, or need I take this to DRV? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it appears that you recreated the version that was previously prodded, so I suppose that it needs to go to WP:AfD if it is to be deleted. Sorry about the confusion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I manually constructed a less-ORish version. I'd not thought to check to see if the versions were the same--that's a good enough reason to go ahead with the deletion for me, so it's gone now.  I hate things that are clearly non-encyclopedic but would survive on a technicality but aren't so blatantly bad that someone wouldn't complain that I was IAR'ing inappropriately if I just went ahead and deleted them. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of or Vandalism?
Could you check this removal of an entire footnoted section recorded as "removing vandalism"? He's also reverting a lot of information that doens't follow guidlines of what can be deleted from WP Bachcell (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Lloyd&diff=312620415&oldid=312604086
 * Yes, it wasn't appropriately termed vandalism, although there's probably more neutral ways that the content in that section could have been worded. How about being a bit proactive and seeing if you could go through and make sure that it's NPOV as possible. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ENEMY is a thought-provoking essay on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

D66
Hi. You posted that you agreed with me that D66 should be merged into Dice notation. I could easily do this, but I am still weak on the technical stuff. Can you tell me how to:


 * 1) Delete the page D66 properly OR
 * 2) Turn D66 into a redirect to Dice notation

I can handle the content, but I have no objections if you do it on one fell swoop.

Nezzadar (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ack, sorry I missed this. I'll reply on your talk page. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "European_Coordination_for_Accelerator_Research_and_Development"
Dear Jclemens,

You deleted the page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coordination_for_Accelerator_Research_and_Development" due to ‎G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://eucard.web.cern.ch/EuCARD/news/newsletters/issue01/article2.html

I am the webmaster of http://eucard.web.cern.ch/EuCARD and I can confirm that the Wikipedia article does not infringe the copyright of the EuCARD website. Please could this Wikipedia page be undeleted? Please let me know if text should be added to the Wikipedia article to ensure that the page is not deleted again.

Thanks for your help with this Katebrad Katebrad (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see donating copyrighted material for the process to make sure we have verified permission to use this material in the future. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jclemens, Thank you for your reply. In light of this copyright issue, EuCARD has decided to remove the copyright statement from its website. If you look at http://eucard.web.cern.ch/EuCARD you will see this is now amended. In light of this change, the G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement is no longer the case. Please can you thus reinstate the EuCARD Wikipedia article. I look forward to your help with this. All the best Katebrad Katebrad (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a start, but in the U.S., everything is copyright "by default", whether or not a copyright notice is attached. You can explicitly release the material for Wikipedia use by following the directions at WP:DCM.  Once that's done, you can feel free to recreate the article yourself if you don't want to wait for me or another administrator to undelete the previous version.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Juliet Wheldon
Hi. You deleted the Wheldon article recently for copyright infringement. I re-created the article, hopefully in line with copyright rules. Could you review when you have a chance and give me your opinion? Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello?? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't normally evaluate copyright status of things--just validate the recommendations of others who do, and delete articles when appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Query on PERSIST FP7 Project page deletion.
Hi there, My name is Kevin Doolin and I am the coordinator of the EU project PERSIST. I see that you have deleted the wikipedia page for this project and I am wondering why this has happened, and if you can please undelete?

Thanks. kdoolin [at] tssg [dot] org Kevindoolin (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll restore it. Please address the deficiencies in the article that caused it to be proposed for deletion in the first place. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Article wrongly deleted
Hello. I just saw that you deleted yesterday the article Romans (group), because :


 * 1: Article admits they only released one single, which does not seem to have charted.
 * The single has charted in Japan, N°10 on Oricon charts: http://www.oricon.co.jp/music/release/d/516501/1/ (highest ranking: N°10 (最高位：10位))


 * 2: Being owned by the Hello! Project corporation does not add to their notability
 * But acording to Notability (music): 6: An ensemble may be notable (if) it contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
 * Romans members Mari Yaguchi and Rika Ishikawa have released albums with pop band Morning Musume, popular band in Japan, Hitomi Saito with pop band Melon Kinenbi, and Mai Satoda with pop band Country Musume.

This article was notable according to this. Could you put it back online? L. 86.66.169.225 (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, none of that mattered. It's a WP:PROD deletion, which simply means that someone tagged the article as a likely candidate for non-controversial deletion, and no one else contested that for a week. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it obviously wasn't a likely candidate for non-controversial deletion. I'm a french wikipedia user, I don't follow english wiki deletion pages, so I see the results of deletion afterwards, when the english inter-wiki link is removed from the french article. So what must I do? Can I recreate it myself, or do I have to ask for its "un-deletion" somewhere? L. 87.88.187.3 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Should just be restored by Jclemens as it is now contested. I'm surprised he hasn't already undeleted. - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and undeleted it since Jclemens isn't around at the moment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I added the facts listed here in the article. L. 86.66.169.225 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ThaddeusB. Yes, I was out of town yesterday, but not long enough to merit a "wikibreak" template... I thought! :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of PERSIST FP7 Project
An article that you have been involved in editing, PERSIST FP7 Project, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably a good AfD. Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of section again on Mark Lloyd
It's happened again here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Lloyd&diff=312877553&oldid=312876477

Can they do this? Doesn't WP have specific rules on what can be deleted, especially sections with lots of footnotes from notable sources? Obviously people are trying to scrub this site of any information not provided by the Obama adminstration, and exclude any controversy from the #1 rated cable show. Can you help and tell the folks that they can't do this, or explain to me why they can get away with this? Bachcell (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to be there, contesting the deletion with policy-based arguments. The deletion remarks were incivil and unwarranted, and should have been challenged on that basis.  There have been a number of inappropriate POV-pushing deletions on that page, as well as a number of inappropriate additions, in what I reviewed from the ref you gave me to the current/protected version.  If you want to participate in such a situation, you need four things: 1) Sourcing! 2) Policy knowledge--know V, RS, SPS, UNDUE, 3RR, etc. like the back of your hand. 3) Time.  Don't let bad edits or deletions go unchallenged. 4) Impeccable coolness and politeness under fire.  If you're deficient in any one of these areas, I'd just recommend walking away. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Review of one of your speedies
Yo J, there's a request for undeletion here questioning an speedy deletion you made. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers, Skomorokh  23:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bibliofilm
Dear Jclemens. Bibliofilm from Valery Nikolaevsky (which article you have deleted)is well known in Russia, it is now published for over 20 years, started in 1989 until today. That is why it was so important to keep this article! Bibliofilm is known as a new form in literature from experts and professors of university and known in university departments of history, philology and slavistik, from members of academy of scients, institutes of academy of scients. That is why it was so important to keep this article! The writer him self Valery Nikolaevsky (older than 71 years) don´t work with the internet, becouse of his eyes. We help him (fans of his works), but we´re not perfect english speakers. That is why there were this problems, but we hope to get help, in russian article aren´t any problems. Can we try it again to write this article with some help and with your agreement. 13.44, 9 September 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.13.14 (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to recreate the article, making references to reliable sources which document the work. If you already have a good article started at ru.wikipedia, you might benefit from getting that article and its references translated as a starting point. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it was deleted via PROD, I've restored it. Be aware, though, that someone else may nominate the article for a formal deletion discussion.  Right now, the article is not in good shape.  It needs more sources, more examples, and a better explanation of why it is a separate genre of work that deserves an article on the genre. Jclemens (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jclemens, we thank you! The article on russian Wikipedia is very well done, but we dont have the opportunities to translate it as professional to english. But we work in that direction. There is a question about the categories, we think it will be right if there were a new category "Bibliofilm" - there are no other Replacements. We thank you and wish you only the best - 13.25, 17 September 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.13.14 (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Page Simon Willson
I was wondering why this article was deleted I was the first foreign DJ to ever play in China and have about 40 Hong Kong movie credits as well as working as a producer presenter for Hong Kongs' premier English language radio service since 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.64.41 (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it was deleted under WP:PROD and not WP:CSD. Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the inner workings of Wiki, it took me weeks to find this area! Can this be WP:PROD reversed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.114.26 (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've restored it. Please address the concerns, as anyone can now nominate it for the regular (seven day discussion) deletion process. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Incubator

 * Thanks for taking the initiative. I'm in. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Orlando "Maraca" Valle
Hello! I was thinking of re-creating the page on Orlando "Maraca" Valle. Since you deleted it, I wanted to check with you before re-creating the page. This person appears to be a notable Cuban Flautist; this is part of an effort for me to create more pages on Latin-american musical artists, as there seems to be a bias towards many non-notable American musicians and groups being included, whereas many notable Latin-american ones, especially Cubans, are missing. I'd also be interested in userification of any salvageable material (if there was any) in the page you deleted. Thanks. Cazort (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create it again. Do be sure to make it clear exactly why he is notable--best practice is to do so in the first paragraph, and make it explicitly clear how he meets WP:BAND.  A speedy deletion under criterion A7 is NOT a bar to recreation of the article--just an indication that the article, as it was, didn't explain well enough why the subject is important enough. Best wishes, Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback rights
I meant no harm. I felt that anon was being disruptive. You disagreed and that's fine. I had no malicious intent and would like to have my rollback rights restored. In addition, feel free to restore the comments I removed or I will if my rollback rights are restored. SMP0328. (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you agree to sit down and reorient yourself to WP:VAND, and respond appropriately in light of that guidance to the IP address, you can have your rollback rights back tonight. There's a TON of real vandalism going on, but we have to be very careful that we don't see vandalism in everything--for all I know, the guy may very well have made up a source and be a disruptive POV pusher--but that's not something to tackle with rollback or bring to AIV, and it's not something that I saw in the contributions made to date.  In your quest to keep Wikipedia vandalism-free, please be sure not to bite the newbies. Fair enough? Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. SMP0328. (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the anonymous edits that were rolled back. I have since established an account, hopefully this will give my work more credibility. Is the discussion page the correct place to justify my edits?Roman24 (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Recovering deleted article to meet WP standards
I just found out that the article on WJHU was deleted - ref: "05:56, 1 April 2009 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "WJHU" ‎ (Expired PROD: Unlicensed internet only streaming audio. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources.)" The article combined several significant items - notably the now defunct WJHU-FM, as well as a couple of campus radio operations at the Johns Hopkins University. Some of the sources for the article were actually first hand (including some of my own contributions). It would be helpful to recover the deleted text to reconstruct something that can fill a gap and not be deleted again. Thanks in advance.--A12n (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and restored the article. You'll want to work on it right away, lest someone else propose it for a "full" deletion.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll also alert others.--A12n (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Vaticanus
Only section with textual variants is not mentioned in the lead. I have problem with finding sources to this sentence:
 * Currently, the codex is one of the most frequently edited.

Of course it is true, but no sources for now. I will delete it. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Curtis Loftis ?
[] was deleted with the reason "03:42, 30 August 2009 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "Curtis Loftis" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Article fails WP:BIO notability criteria. Google News gives no hits for the man or his charity. Extremely limited (essentially zero) 2nd party biographical commentary online. Though doubtless an altruistic indi) "

You said "Extremely limited (essentially zero) 2nd party biographical commentary online", would newspaper articles from different news sources all over the state of SC and possibly national newspapers count enough to keep the page up?
 * I didn't say that. That text was inserted by the PROD nominator.  After seven days with no one removing the tag, I simply go through and if the issue isn't obviously bad faith and I don't have personal knowledge that it's inaccurate, I delete 'em.  The deletion log entry copies the original nominator's rationale, unless I specifically change it. Would you like the old article back so you can work on improving it? Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would, I will be updating the information and links on it tommorrow when he hands me the final draft of what he wants the page to say, thank you for your help.
 * Ok, it's restored. Happy editing! Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was PROD nominator for this one. Interesting that "he" will be making a "final draft of what he wants the page to say." I sense a WP:AUTOBIO... but interested to wait and see what refs he comes up with, whether he really can prove his own notability and neutrality.  --Whoosit (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and it's within your rights to take it to AfD at any point, of course, although I'd suggest the courtesy of a few days for the PROD contester to work on it. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. Can you also restore the article's TALK page? Not sure, but I think there may have been some useful commentary there... --Whoosit (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk page restored. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry, Ill be able to prove everything I put on there. Oh and about the talk page, it states in the page that he stepped down from the Department of aging, the person just didnt read.--ForrrestMaster (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Daybreak (BSG)
Just to let you know the mediation attempt has died, there has been no action for several months so you will need to move on to the next stage of discussion which would require a request with the Mediation cabal for someone to get this restarted. It has been four months since anyone has moved on it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, than, I'm taking off the unreferenced tag, because there was no consensus that primary sources were being used inappropriately in that case. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Either the mediation request is dead, as you assert, and the tag goes, or the section and tag can stay and the mediation can continue. Which would you prefer? Seriously--I'm really unclear as to the desired outcome here. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-21/WikiProject report: WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons
Check it out! :) BOZ (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of ILAT
Hello Jclemens, I'm pretty new to Wiki editing, but I was wondering why you deleted the page ILAT which I started and was maintaining. I don't understand the reasons given: "No third party sourcing, insufficient claims of notability". Could you please explain this to me? I'm the CTO of the company and, so, everything I put in there was "primary source" material. It should also have been confirmable by links to our website at http://www.ilat.org. Is there any way to recover this page? Or do you have suggestions on how I should format and cite it in the future? Thanks! Ryanbrooks (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

re AfD
Regarding the note you left me, perhaps you could leave a note about the inappropriate and bad faith demeanor chosen by this user? It is most unproductive and unfortunately leads to a quite poisonous atmosphere that is not conducive to positive, polite, and constructive dialogue. Cirt (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Too much history there for him to take advice from me, I'm afraid. See my RFA for details. Fundamentally, I don't think he's interested in changing: either he'll tick enough people off to get banned, or he won't. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Jclemens here. A lot of people have tried counseling Hrafn and he never makes any effort to improve his behavior (that I've seen anyway).  Sooner or later, someone needs to open an RfC on the matter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Barnstar

 * Thank you very much! Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-visting Loftis
Hey J, un-deleted PROD has been stagnant for some time... no work done on it since our initial conversation a couple weeks ago and no online activity from the editor in question. Do you feel it's appropriate to list for AfD or do should I wait some more? --Whoosit (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. It's been over a week since unprod, with, as you said, zero progress. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That user
Hey, on Aug. 30 we helped out a user; Tkhoughton. (S)he is requesting help on my talk now. I don't know what to say to him/her, I don't know why it was redirected. You can edit and talk to this user on my talk page if you want.-- Cubs197   (talk)  21:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Study Island
Hi - can you please restore Study Island which you deleted as an expired prod. I came across it through my involvement with Providence Equity Partners which owns Archipelago Learning, the name of the company that operates Study Island. I am not sure about what content was in the article but the website and the company are notable given their size / scale. Additionally, Archipelago launched a $75 million initial public offering to go public on the Nasdaq. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 14:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, but what's there is pretty minimal and lame. I'd strongly encourage working on it ASAP, before someone else comes along and AfD's it. Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it looks like there was probably an issue with WP:ADVERT and the article was basically reduced to one paragraph and then prodded for deletion. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

New debate on providing closing rationales for AfDs
I mentioned you (in a good way) here. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, replied there. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Irving Benson deletion
why did you delete irving benson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterroane (talk • contribs)
 * The article was deleted in accordance with the proposed deletion process, on an assertion that he did not meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline for inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Vice Verses
You deleted this page a while back, and that is understood. But once it becomes more relevant and more details start to emerge, will you reinstate it? Just curious. Thanks! Joberooni (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per what I said in closing the deletion discussion, "No prejudice against recreation once RS establish this title--drop me a note if anyone wants this userified until that happens". So no, I won't be the one working on it, but I'll be happy to provide a copy of the older/deleted article once there's independent coverage with which someone else wants to recreate the article. "No prejudice against recreation" also means that I do not expect any other admin to use CSD-G4 against a recreated article if the situation has changed and the cirucmstances of the original deletion (only announced by the band, not industry press) no longer apply. Make sense? Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Thanks so much. Joberooni (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of PROD on November 7 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics)
I noticed you changed the PROD status of November 7 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics) to a merge proposal to the November 7 page. Considering the size of the content, I think this is just too much overhead, but -- all the same -- I added the relevant info to the other page(s) (see commits and ). I'm not familiar with page merges. What should happen next? Would you please take the next step?

(this happened a while ago, but I was busy in the meantime and didn't notice)

Thanks – Daniel Mahu (talk&#124;contribs) · 07:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Diego Traibel
Hi! I saw you declined the speedy on this article - I too thought it was very strange that an article on a Uruguayan senator would be listed for A7 speedy deletion. But digging a little deeper, I suspect that this article is actually a hoax, and have nominated it for deletion at Articles for deletion/Diego Traibel. Would appreciate it if you could take a look. Cheers! --Stormie (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * !voted there--thanks for doing that work. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Less than stellar?
I personally consider civil and polite behaviour to be critical at AFD, so I was a bit taken aback when I saw you describe our interaction as "less than stellar". Especially since I couldn't remember interacting with you at AFD. I went through my AFDs in the past year, and we have participated in these three:


 * Articles for deletion/The Ultimate DisneyMania Collection
 * Articles for deletion/Dare To Love Me
 * Articles for deletion/Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)

Can you show me where my participation had any inappropriate aspects?

It's harder to debate "per DGG". I can't quite figure out why I need to have a minimum "keep" threshold, but if you feel I do, I can't argue with the fact that I argued to delete every hoax and crystal violation I encountered. I will just point out that when new information comes to light, I will change to "keep" on articles that I have nominated:
 * Articles_for_deletion/Stay (SafetySuit_song)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Despues de Todo

I think that demonstrates that I listen to and respect opposing arguments during AFDs.&mdash;Kww(talk) 07:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Doc of the Dawn deletion
I am both the original author of the biography for Doc of the Dawn on the wiki and on DocoftheDawn.com. The source of the content was myself...not the website. Thus there is no unambiguous copywrite infringement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian221 (talk • contribs)
 * Assuming you're telling the truth, of course. Nothing personal, but people lie about the copyright status of things they upload to Wikipedia all the time. Please see WP:DCM if you'd like to donate those copyrighted materials. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging during live AfD
You are receiving this notification because you commented at WT:Articles for deletion. I have started a follow-up discussion at WT:Articles for deletion. Flatscan (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. For precision, I think you reversed your comment, as copying content precludes a delete outcome, requiring that the page history stay visible. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not really. You're looking at licensing, which is valid, but my comment was in the context of foreclosing the possibility of a keep outcome, just because things looked bad at one point. Both are valid arguments against merge during AfD. :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, my misunderstanding. Thanks for the reply. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Codex Vaticanus
You put this article on hold at WP:GAN on August 10, with your last comment on September 17. It's now been two months. GA reviews should really not take longer than about 2-3 weeks. If you could wrap this up, that would be appreciated! Note: Failing an article does not mean that it can't be renominated. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been waiting too long for him to fix the remaining errors. I'll fail it Monday if it isn't fixed by then. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Tischendorf's scribe C was proven not to exist." - Is it enough? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How can it be proven? It can be argued conclusively and become the generally accepted hypothesis, but proving something is not a construction that I normally see in academic discussions of ancient texts--the word in English implies a level of certainty that seems excessive in this context.  Does that make sense? Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Tischendorf's scribe C was eliminated." Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Eliminated by whom? How? Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Mz Bratt
Hi Jclemens

i have just visted wikipedia and for a page of an artsit that i like very much has been deleted from the site, im a a really big fan of Mz Bratt, and have spent time, locating references for the article, and feel gut that it has been deleted from the site :(. i understand that have to do a, job for the site and i completely resepect that, and for it to be removed it clearly did me some of the site guideline in some way. what im asking is for you to tell me what has to be corrected on the page, and i will try my be to correct the problem. i love contributing to the site, and as a fan and a user would like to help in anyway. this is my email- mayville123@hotmail.co.uk

many thanks

Amy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.67.235 (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Amy, I keep my Wikipedia interactions online, rather than IRC or email, and thus don't email articles to people. I will copy a version to userspace, if you'd like to create an account.  The article was deleted by another administrator as being promotional (follow the link I added in this section title, and you can see the deletion logs), but it probably wouldn't take too much effort to clean it up.  It is still pretty marginal as far as meeting the notability guideline WP:MUSICBIO, but can probably be improved if the coverage exists.  Hope that helps, Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jclemens many thank for the reply, i have now created an account for wikipedia, so you can send through any information you need to. i look at some of the guideline but do understand them very well, would u be able to give me some guidence on the mz bratt article ?

many thanks again

amy
 * So Amy, what are the specific questions you have? WP:MUSICBIO (the entire page, not just that section) is a great starting point for understanding what should be focused on in an article on a musician. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My RFA
I'm going through and doing the traditional RFA spam, but there are a few editors that are getting personalized comments instead. I was disappointed to receive your oppose in my RFA. I was especially disappointed because it seems to have been based on a faulty recollection. In this comment on your talk page, I provided links to every AFD we have interacted in that I could find. I'll admit that I only searched over a one year interval, but that's a long time. I don't see where any of the interactions between us could be described as "less than stellar". Most of them could barely even be described as interaction. Could you clarify your reason for opposing?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on the road at the moment, and don't have the time to give a detailed response. Frankly, my unease was vague because I don't rightly remember myself any specifics.  I will get you specifics before your next run at RfA.  Your coolheadedness in the face of the canvassing-cum-discrediting-attempt was admirable, and had I noticed it before time had expired, I would have switched to neutral on that basis alone. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like you've already gotten some great feedback there, but thanks for the invite. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Queen Project
Hi there. You recently proposed this article for deletion; I have removed the prod template, as I believe it satisfies point 6 of WP:BAND, 'Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians'. If you disagree, feel free to take it to AFD. Robofish (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I might later. I've stubbified it for now.  Hopefully someone who cares will actually improve it to be an actual article. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MurmurHash
Jclemens, I believe you may have been too hasty in deleting MurmurHash. Before I go into why, allow me to point out that MurmurHash is not a minor character in BTvS or an obscure alt emo-thrash band that sings love songs about Hitler. Rather, it's a popular algorithm that is currently in use in many open-source projects, including the memcached that keeps Wikipedia responsive. In other words, it's not fluff; it's part of that small bit of useful stuff that Wikipedia sometimes has room for. By hosting this page, Wikipedia allows programmers doing research to discover a particular solution.

The reason I believe the deletion was premature is that the new article is substantively different from the old one. The old article was bloated and could not support various self-promoting claims. The new article is much shorter, more modest, and heavily referenced. I (re)created it in response to feedback about my trimming down two articles on other hashes, for which the cure to similar problems was the editorial red pen, not the ax. As these three algorithms have similar characteristics and are frequently seen as alternatives, it would seem to be harmful to obscure one of them.

For these reasons, I don't believe it was a candidate for WP:PROD. Is there some key procedural step that I skipped? Phil Spectre (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deleted via PROD, it was deleted by CSD-G4, as a recreation of previously deleted material. The next step in contesting that would be to find some unequivocally WP:RS, construct a replacement article in your userspace, then make an argument to the original deleting admin that it should be reallowed--he may accept your argument, or sent you to Wp:DRV to reevaluate the situation. Would you like the deleted version restored to your userspace so you can work on it there? Jclemens (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I was able to restore the most recently deleted version on my own.
 * While the new version preserves most of the links, I've removed most of the words and replaced them with fewer and shorter ones. I would think that any of the links from high-profile projects that use MurmurHash, from memcached to Hadoop, would be unequivocally WP:RS.  If you think otherwise, I would genuinely like to hear why.
 * It looks like the next step is to contact someone named User:NuclearWarfare, but I'm going to wait for your feedback, first. Phil Spectre (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Documentation in other primary sources that it exists meets WP:V, but WP:RS are necessary to demonstrate that it is a notable topic. That is, it really doesn't matter if anyone's using it, if no one cares enough to write about it as a separate entity.  How can it be demonstrated that this package is, in fact, notable? Is there any tech press on it? Do any books or articles on encryption cover it? Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarification, it's an algorithm, not a package, and since it's non-cryptographic, it's not going to be found in any books or articles on encryption.  It is much along the lines of, and frequently mentioned in the same context as, algorithms such as the Fowler-Noll-Vo hash function and Jenkins hash function.
 * Now, if you look at those two pages to get a feel for the baseline, it turns out that both are sourced exclusively from a web site run by their inventor. The closest they've come to the sort of proof of notability you speak of is Jenkins getting an article in DDJ 12 years ago.  That article covers only his one-at-a-time hash, while the other two functions by Jenkins have no such coverage.  One-at-a-time hash is both badly flawed and made obsolete by Jenkins' more recent work, so its single external source does not seem sufficient to justify the whole page, at least not on the basis you require.  Does this mean neither one is non-notable?  I would say that the reaction I got when I filed an AfD on FNV suggests that it's quite notable, to the point where I decided to withdraw and just trim the page.
 * What's going on here? Well, it seems that there's more than one set of criteria in play: these two pages exist despite not meeting your standard.  Should they be expected to, though?  Consider that all of these algorithms are mentioned in WP:RS, but they're unlikely to ever be written about in a monograph, whether in the tech or academic press, precisely because of what they are.  For example, you can find mention of MurmurHash in an academic article  but it's not about hashes.  Sure, cryptographic hashes get the celebrity treatment, and they deserve it, but we can't reasonably expect notable non-cryptographic hashes to get this level of press coverage.  To do so would be tantamount to ruling out the possibility of a notable non-cryptographic hash in advance.
 * My feeling on this is that we should base the measure of notability on the sort of thing we're considering. In this case, a more likely place to find a WP:RS on notability would be any site that lists hash algorithms deemed to be worth noting.  And we have plenty of these, from the NIST Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures to Google Code.  The Google site even says, in as many words, "Here are some hash functions of note", following this with Murmur, FNV, Jenkins and Hsieh.  If this isn't a WP:RS of WP:N, I am at a loss as to what might qualify. Phil Spectre (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hangon there. First, don't write so much: I don't care.  I just deleted something because someone else tagged it, and it appeared appropriate to do so.  Do explain to me what it is, but please don't get into detailed arguments.  Second, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Third, please check through Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News (with archives, if appropriate) and tell me what you can find on the subject that WASN'T written by the author, a press release, or on some self-published venue (read: most amateur websites).  A couple of mentions in such sources is all that's needed to demonstrate notability. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to {hangon}, but you deleted it anyhow. :-)


 * Sorry, I'm not trying to flood you with information. I'm just thinking out loud, so to speak, as I plan how I would make my case.  I did read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and I'm confident that it's in my favor.  I can explain in detail if you're curious.
 * As for more finding more references, MurmurHash has only been around for a couple of years, so sources that dig deeper are pretty useless. Google Books didn't have much mention of non-crypto hashes in general, and none of these were new enough to have mentioned MurmurHash without the benefit of a time machine.  Google News is useless because none of these notable hashes make the news (or likely ever will).  With Google Scholar, it was slim pickings all around, but I was able to find mention in a few academic papers .  These state that MurmurHash was used and explain why in the context of similar notable hashes, such as FNV and Jenkins.  I also found mention in a non-academic but technical publication, Phrackarticle.  I think this is enough already to establish notability, but let's see what else turns up.


 * A general search using Google and Bing found some .edu references, as well as more open-source projects that brag about using MurmurHash. This list was already substantial and significant, and now it includes hypertable, Lyken, CDB++ (which evolved from a project by Daniel J. Bernstein), and Apache .  Frankly, I think these are even more important than the academic papers, because what makes a hash function notable is the fact that it's being actively used in things that are themselves notable, as opposed to just being studied as a curiosity.  I would also think that recognition by the government, such as by the NIST would make it notable.  Interestingly, Bob Jenkins' own hash page mentions MurmurHash and admits it's faster, which is itself notable.  I'm going to skip over the blogs, forums and mailing lists, as they're not generally WP:RS, but there's certainly no shortage of discussion about this hash, nor any shortage of ports to popular languages (now including Objective C for Cocoa); it is anything but obscure.  Finally, I'll remind you of code.google.com explicitly calling it notable.


 * Is it soup yet? Phil Spectre (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, I checked out the first reference, and that looks like a good thing to include. The googlecode.com link has an error.  Go ahead and add the academic references and NIST, trim some of the other references (quality beats quantity), and massage it all together in your userspace so that it makes a good-looking article. Then, we'll either polish it more, or go talk to NW about it. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, but I got busy in real life.
 * I fixed the GoogleCode link. I'll go ahead and make the changes you suggested, then get back to you. Phil Spectre (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point, I've made the changes you suggested. If you have any additional advice, I'm open to it.  Or if you want to go ahead and polish it yourself, that would work, too. Phil Spectre (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On the road this week, I'm not likely to be able to look at this in detail before Friday. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No hurry. Phil Spectre (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think you'll have a chance to look at it this weekend? I ask because I finally have a bit of free time to spare. Phil Spectre (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless you have more suggestions, I'd like to move forward with recreating the article. Phil Spectre (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nate Byham
How does it not meet the criteria for speedy deletion.--Yankees10 21:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You asserted CSD-A1, which asserts that there's not enough context to identify the subject. There's plenty of context, including wikilinks.  There's not a whole lot of content, and not a good assertion of notability, but you asked for A1, not A3 or A7. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OnHashChange
Hi, I wrote the OnHashChange page and i do thing after read it dose not deserve its own page but i think it should maybe merged with a html5 page as its about browser compliance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.148.18 (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Janet Allison
You and I are of a mind, I think, but in this case the mountain will not come to Mohammed. We're dealing with an irrational view held by a very vocal and influential group. My advice is, let's fight the battles we can win. :)— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have this irrational desire to shout "the emperor has no clothes!" no matter how socially acceptable it is or is not. Thanks for the encouragement. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/userfication
Glad to see you came out in support of this. I don't do a lot of new page patrols, but I can see where this is very beneficial to those who do. Ikip (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I noticed your mention in the logs of WT:ARS, popped in, and found an idea I've mentioned myself in the past. Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Match Attax ?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topps ... Match Attax, the official Premier League trading card game, is the biggest selling boys collectable in the UK two years running. Being sold across the globe in a number of countries, the collection also holds the title of the biggest selling sports collectable in the world. It is estimated that around 1.5 million children collect it in the UK, and 2.5 million children in the world.

Assuming these figuresa accurate basically you are saying that something of great interest to 2.5 million children (including my 5 and 6 year old boys) is suitable for deletion from wikipedia ??? --- kieran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.174.113 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn vulnerable web app
Please undelete this page as this page contain usefull information for learning security.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swati 80 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Financial troubles for Michael Vick
I'd like to contest the deletion of this article via PROD, since it seems as though the article is relevant enough for it's own article.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 01:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Contesting... declined, at least for now. It's a POV fork of a BLP.  Rather than going to DRV (which you can always do, of course), if you want to start a topic on WP:BLP/N about the article, I'll restore it if there's consensus there to do so.  I'm just not going to restore such an article on my own, even if it was "just" deleted via PROD, in that I don't think it appropriately handles BLP topics, even if it is sourced. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Realm Crafter (moved from subpage)
Please could you give me a copy of "Realm Crafter"? I believe I can edit it and remove the "blatant advertising". Dagmon (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Dagmon
 * Restored to User:Dagmon/Realm Crafter. Note that the past versions of the article contain more possibly useful text than what it said when it was deleted. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Hiroshima terrorist attack
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Morris
Is previous deletion grounds for refusing a delete tag? Restoration is, but recreation? Ironholds (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if it's been PROD'ed at all before it's technically ineligible per WP:PROD. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

MurmurHash, still
Do you have anything more to say about MurmurHash? Phil Spectre (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jclemens, I'm not sure why you haven't responded, but I'm ready to move forward with this. I'd appreciate having you behind me on this. Phil Spectre (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't particularly care one way or the other about this, to be honest. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your candor. Phil Spectre (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA1
Hi,

I have left a brief 3rd opinion at the above. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Janet Allision
Per you comments in the deletion review, I thought you might be interested in helping to reworkg the material into a more suitable form. As such, please see Article Incubator/Janet Allison and the comments I've made on the talk page. Please feel free to contribute whatever you like. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like to thank you for your thoughtful comments and the efforts you put into this. It made a great difference to the debate, and helped me keep my sanity. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, I don't know that I have the time to contribute to the new article, but I am morally supportive of the efforts, and can help with specific questions if any arise. Thanks for the kind words, PC.  I dislike groupthink and when people cite policies that don't remotely apply to the situation in question. There are too many senior users who treat issues as "settled", when the facts of a specific case don't lead one to that conclusion at all. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL!
You deleted the article for Strike Commando because it was "unnotable" in your view. Despite the fact that it was a significant film that I watched many times in my youth and many others have seen as well, because it's some "obscure Italian" B-list, you decided "screw it" and be gone with it. Nice job. 66.176.117.29 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion of AfD for Game Zero magazine page
Hi, I've been the person supporting this page primarily. The dilemma related to getting sourcing for this page was documented to some degree on the Talk page but "Juliancolton" has deleted that information already. Nearly all of the secondary on-line news sources that I was aware of are publications that have long since ceased to be or their relevant content was removed prior to archive.org's initial indexing in late 1996/early 1997. I have video-tape of the X-Band channel showing the publications news credits and I have the issue of I-Way magazine referenced in the article but any other on-line reference appears to be long gone. I believe the sole remaining link online from another commercial magazine from that time period is a link from Wired magazine regarding one of our FAQs. Anyways, since you commented on the History with your thoughts on AfD, I'm reaching out to you to see if you have any suggestion on how to resolve a situation like this? I am truly at a loss. Thanks! BcRIPster (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the talk page. I'm not going to AfD the page, because it looks like it has potential to me. Does that help at all? Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for your help. BcRIPster (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

How the Earth Was Made
Please continue to help with How the Earth Was Made.--Twinsday (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rampage Trio
Hi, Jclemens You flagged The Rampage Trio page as lacking importance in February of 2009. We thought we had significantly improved the importance with statements like, "Owens continues to promote the music scene by publishing Metronome Magazine which he founded in 1985." as well as "Crowley was featured in a 2004 issue of Modern Drummer Magazine. His drum sets of choice include a natural Birch shell Tama Swingstar kit and a Vintage 60s Ludwig set." We also felt that the seasoned veterans that The Rampage Trio has played with, their staying power and notoriety in the New England area, and their international music distribution gave the article a level of importance. Unfortunately, the page was recently deleted and we would like to reverse that decision. Since you were the last person to flag the page, could you lend some insight into what we could do to improve the level of importance? The page existed until recently, so we're also a bit baffled at the time-frame of deletion. Oaken13 (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Complete erasure of comments on talk page
Can he do this without discussion? How would you respond? Bachcell (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation/GA1&curid=23126544&diff=326436684&oldid=326431027
 * Assuming good faith, it looks like his objections were to the comments being placed in the GA1 subpage, which is for good article assessment. Generally, comments are not deleted outright, but moved to a more appropriate place. Check to see if he copied and pasted them to a more appropriate location? Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sona Babai
Hi, I noticed that you removed the PROD from Sona Babai, but did not provide a reason. I was wondering if you could explain your rationale, as I'm considering now whether or not to bring it to AFD, and I'd be interesting in hearing why you thought it was a controversial deletion. I don't mean to harp, I'm just curious and it may make me decide not to waste everyone's time with AFD if I agree. Thanks and Cheers, CP 16:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have included that in the edit summary. Appears to have one RS, has some assertion of notability... It's borderline.  I deprodded it, but I wouldn't oppose an AfD--I think it just needs more eyes before deletion. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I'll have a second look to see if there are more significant sources, and then probably make my decision about nominating it tomorrow. I'll let you know, in case you're interested in participating. Cheers, CP 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A few days later, but here it is, in case you wish to comment. Cheers, CP 17:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but like I said... I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Adam DeGraide
Hello Mr. Clemens. Recently, I noticed that the Wikipedia page for Adam DeGraide was deleted. You stated that it appears too much like a CV or resume. I completely understand where you're coming from, but all of the information on the page we were just trying to link to all of the press that he is getting. In fact, Adam was just placed on the cover of the largest insurance magazine in the world, Insurance Journal in November 2009. http://astonishresults.com/press/files/IJ-FreakinMarketing.pdf Please reconsider deleting this profile, as it is full of useful information on this powerful CEO. I would appreciate your input. Please feel free to contact me at sbrazdo@gmail.com Cheers! Scott
 * OK, this has been restored. Please make appropriate improvements. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hiroshima_terrorist_attack
I don't want to badger you, so hopefully you don't mind me commenting here. I was just playing around with the tool you used to show searches for the redirect, and if I go back to previous months, I don't see any hits at all over the summer. (I commented on the RfD that there weren't any hits from Oct-Jan of this year, and maybe earlier, I got bored from looking). I just thought that was odd given the research surge it reports this month, so I was wondering if you had any ideas. I.e., is there an issue with the tool reporting old data improperly (since the only month that showed any hits was this one), or bizarre statistical fluke. -- B figura (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, I have absolutely no problem with polite, non-adversarial conversation anywhere; you're always welcome to come here and ask such a question, even if we're debating different sides of a topic. Beyond that... I don't think the tool records usage before the page became a page.  That is, it's how many times the redirect page has been accessed, which amounts to about a week and a half now, since I created it.  Beyond that, I'd have to ask someone more experienced with the tool. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've refactored my comments on the RfD to reflect that. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD

 * 1) How is Black Kite "involved" in the RfD? Because he had made one comment about the BLP violations of an editor involved?
 * 2) How are you uninvolved enough to restore the deleted page (using a sysop tool, when you yourself are clearly involved) and reopen the discussion?
 * 3) Did you discuss it with Black Kite at all?
 * 4) Why did you not bring it to DRV?

Would be interested in the answers to any and all of these questions. Nathan  T 03:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nathan, you may recall a similar affair about a redirect that devolved into a downright poisonous atmosphere. For Black Kite to close a RFD on which precisely the same logic, and essentially the same wiki-issue, are at stake, in which Jclemens is a highly visible discussant, was, at the very least, in very poor taste and betrays a startling lack of awareness about maintaining the appearance of impartiality. Ray  Talk 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ray. To Nathan's questions:
 * 1) I didn't say he was involved with the RfD, I said he was involved with ME.
 * 2) That's an interesting question, which I would be open to an RfC on. I completely agree that it would have been inappropriate for me to try and unilaterally overturn the close and insert my own, but I see no reason I can't or shouldn't cry "Foul!" and put the RfD back the way it was before, including undeleting the redirect.
 * 3) No. Black Kite has exhausted any courtesy due him by months of attacks on my character and motivation. I stay away from stuff he's involved in, and it would be courteous for him to return the favor.
 * 4) DRV is about overturning a close. I may yet bring it to DRV, because the revised close is not logical, but my complaint was not about Black Kite's close (even though that, too, defied consensus), but about his personal involvement with me. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, I do remember the Saint Pancake issue. Perhaps there is other history that I'm missing, but it doesn't seem like there is enough animosity between the two of you to bar him from involvement as an administrator in any discussion where you commented; you didn't propose the RfD, and you weren't the only (or even the major) person arguing on either side. I'll grant that your opinions on the subject of redirects (and, more generally, BLP) are clear and the outcome here was somewhat predictable, given the borderline nature of the discussion. Again, though, I don't believe having an opinion necessarily bars an administrator from closing a discussion. On the spectrum of acting inappropriately due to involvement, using your tools to revert his closure and reopen the discussion seems to be much more serious (which is reflected in the reaction to this event on AN/I and the DRV). There is an ongoing DRV, by the way. Nathan  T 21:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal perspectives on animosity are subjective by definition. Both of us have expressed dissatisfaction with the other's interaction towards ourselves--we can all go dig up diffs if there's a desire to do so, and argue about who was more wrong or right, but I think it sufficient to say there is a mutually agreed lack of trust.  I will be happy to apologize for my reversion of Black Kite's close, contingent on his apology for having made such a close in the first place.  Again, I don't intentionally go near things BK takes an interest in, and ask nothing more from him than reciprocally leaving me alone--and by "leaving me alone" I essentially mean not using tools in any debate in which I'm a non-trivial party. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and yeah, I said my peace at the DRV, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd like me to address your complaint, sign in. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerned
I am concerned that you are using your administrative tools to engage in war's with users you don't like and violating WP:POINT by creating redirects not to assist in finding information, but rather to demonstrate something about terrorism. Is there anything you can do to assure me that you're not going to keep this up? Hipocrite (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way did I use any administrative tools that is not already explained in an existing dialogue on this talk page? Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The part where you say "I won't use my admin tools against users I don't like ever again." You can't say someone is involved with you therefor you will be reverting their admin actions when you feel like they are used in contradiction to what you want - goose gander equivalence and all. Please assure me that you won't use tools to engage in wars with users you don't like - and further, that you won't be violating WP:POINT again. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't ever use tools to engage in wars with users, regardless of whether or not I like them, and I will never violate WP:POINT. This is an easy assurance to give--because I've never done either, as explained adequately elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get a broader community consensus. Will you waive the 2 certifier requirement at RFC? Hipocrite (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For what purpose and to what end? Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, here's a more complete answer: if you're interested in a witch hunt, no--had my fill of drama, thanks. If you're interested in a constructive dialogue on any facet of what transpired, with the intent of seeking the community's input for future guideline clarification, then frame the questions appropriately here, and I'll be happy to waive such a requirement. Jclemens (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:NPOV
I just opened up a thread at WT:NPOV, just a pointer to the links so far and a suggestion that maybe difficulties with the word "terrorist" are obscuring the policy issue. I have no idea if we'll be able to generate discussion, or which way the discussion will go, but feel free to jump in. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, I'll weigh in there. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
Unless you have some actual objection to my edits... I find your revert to be highly bureaucratic. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Love to have your input. BusterD (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see about weighing in later today. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We Passed!
Just thought I'd let you know that the Churches of Christ article has passed the GA review! Thanks for nominating it - that's not something that was on my radar screen, but now it's over, I'm very glad we did it. EastTN (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You did all the work. I just told you it was possible. :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrie
If it had been a newbie I'd have put in the standard tag, but this is someone who knows what they're doing, so it's purely vandalism. (I mean, Darwin Award? BLP vio about weapons smuggling?)  Black Kite 23:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

New Industrial Revolution
I am very disheartened that you deleted this page. It was noteworthy and encyclopedic enough to withstand scrutiny for the past year, and there were several individuals that were contributing to it, besides just myself. Your rationale was that the page was about something that "wasn't happening." I beg to differ. I encourage you to review this decision, and I am going to be working with other administrators in an effort to improve the page. Prior to deleting pages in the future, I strongly urge you to work with the page creator or other editors in an effort to improve the page and make it more encyclopedic.

There was a lot of good information on this page, and I for one, regularly referred to it for my work and for inspiration. To make a blanket statement that this type of revolution is not now occurring denigrates the work of tens of thousands of people who are ushering in this revolution as we speak - activists, bioneers, designers, architects, and many other learned professionals who are paving the way for a better world. Please reconsider your stance and consider working with me to bring this page to the level that you consider to be encyclopedic. I would like to see wikipedia full of rich, interesting, and informative works, not just pages about the next video game.

Thank you for your consideration. ~ * ~ Blue Lunar Storm ~ * ~ (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the instructions at the top of the page. The deletion rationale is supplied by the nominator, not the individual who actually executes the deletion. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the instructions at the top of the page, and read the linked to article on why you delete pages. I don't agree with your rationale - that the article was an "exhortation" and that it was an article about something "is not happening."  I listed some very prominent, well-known players in the revolution, the article is wikilinked, and it contains references.  I suggest that you do a google search prior to making such a determiniation.  Simply google "new industrial revolution" and I guarantee that you will find hundreds of hits that are describing this movement.  If you do not like the name of the article, perhaps that is something that we can work on together.  I chose that name, because that is the most common name for this movement.


 * Also, if you recall, it appears from the log that you were the one who proposed deletion of the article. I did not see any record of a discussion on the proposed deletion, and given the timeline, it appears from the record that you proposed deletion, didn't consider any possible discussion the deletion, and then waited your seven days and proceeded with the deletion.  Because I am contesting your deletion, and the article has merit and withstood scrutiny for over a year, I am respectfully requesting that you reinstate the article and work with me to bring it up to your exacting encyclopedic standards.  I would like to resolve this amicably, but I will take this dispute to the next level if you continue to hide behind your policies without discussing the actual merits of the article.  If you do not agree with the content of the article, or refute that this is a movement that is taking place, let's discuss that.  And, please do the google search, I think that you will be surprised at the amount of material on this subject.  Perhaps this can be a learning opportunity for both of us - a new area of research for you, and a lesson on the wikipedia dispute resolution process for me.  I am a university educator, so I try to see all of life's experiences as learning (and teaching) moments.  ~ * ~ Blue Lunar Storm ~ * ~ (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

--- hey i think you're awesome, but i will be re-writing a page i think is well worth having as so many people refer to it. having said that you're right about poor sourcing so i'll fix that up right now. --Yellow121 (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An idea for the page deletion process--looking for advice
I'm writing to ask advice regarding the page deletion process. I was going to ask you to restore Internalized Consumerism but have found a cache of the content, which I'm planning to move into Wikitionary and possibly the consumerism page. I agree that this page hung on a neologism, but I'm looking for improvement of the process itself.

Apologies for asking your help with this--you're just identified as an administrator who does a lot of the requested deletions, so I figure you're savvy to policy and the way things work. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, but don't understand policy creation and change.

Basically my idea is this: I'd like to see more attention to notification during the article deletion process. I didn't create the Internalized Consumerism page, but I did spend some time modifying it. I believe that, in many cases, anyone contributing to a page has an interest in its survival. (In this case, I certainly cared! Though I don't tend to watch pages--and I imagine that most users don't.) Not all pages belong in Wikipedia but most content belongs somewhere. Notifying contributors when a page is considered for deletion, and again just before it is deleted, would improve the process.

Is this credible? Where is the appropriate place to propose this change in procedure? Or, if this has been considered previously, where can I find an archive of the discussion, to understand why it's not considered a good idea?

Thanks for any thoughts! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, since it's a PROD, all you have to do is ask for it back, (without verbally abusing me in the process) and I restore it. Just FYI.
 * Now, as far as the process goes--Most processes in Wikipedia are optional but encouraged. Thus, there's notification for many people as part of the PROD or XfD processes... as long as the nominators use a package like Twinkle. By-hand notification is several extra steps, and many authors and major contributors simply don't care anyways, so there's not much reward for people to notify extensively.  Watchlisting articles of interest seems to be the best option, which I myself use on articles to which I've substantially contributed. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple thoughts: 1) since you aren't the sole contributor to the article, you can't reuse text without proper attribution. That means if you plan to merge the material, the page should be undeleted so be sure to ask for that.  Of course you can reuse ideas as long as you rephrase them.  2) As a neologism, it is unlikely to meet wiktionary's inclusion standards either.  3) I did a quick search and found very little describing this idea under the provided phase.  Perhaps there is another term that means the same thing?  It seems to me there should be something written on the concept, but how to find it is escaping me at the moment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed the "ask for it back" but when I was writing it didn't seem useful since I agree it's a neologism. Since then, I understood it could be restored to my user space. Could you please do that, so I can be clear on rights (as ThaddeusB notes), if reusing?
 * I don't edit (and thus login) often enough to watch articles--there's no "auto notify" for me--I have to look at the watchlist history (compared to the "You have new messages" notification). I'll look at Twinkle. I agree that by-hand notification is not useful. The problem for me is that new editors are VERY discouraged by deletions, so improved handling would be really useful. Thanks for your thoughts.
 * ThaddeusB: I'll think some more about other ways this might be written about. I agree that wiktionary may not be appropriate, but I think it's an important concept to represent someplace, perhaps in a section of consumerism (e.g. "negative effects" or "concerns" or something like that). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article can now be found at User:Jodi.a.schneider/Internalized Consumerism. if you do decide to reuse content from it, please read through WP:Copying within Wikipedia and/or ask Jclemens or myself for help.  Enjoy, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio images, current handling
Hi. :) Just wanted to let you know that we don't handle images at WP:CP anymore (with respect to Copyright problems/2009 November 23). I'd have probably tagged that one with the relatively new npd to set the automatic clock running. Alternatively, they generally go to PUF these days. I'll go ahead and process this one, but this is by way of an FYI for future issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I normally don't go looking for such problems, so my apologies for using the wrong process. Jclemens (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Since they used to be bundled, it's very understandable. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Used as a source
You are mentioned as a source for my own opinions at "Question about recent edit...". &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Israel has a record of killing observers
I don't know why you've collapsed the mention that Israel has a record of killing western observers at Rachel Corrie. That was very much the case at the time of her death under a bulldozer, since they've (eventually, after a lot of failures to investigate properly) paid compensation for 3 British killed within a few months either side. Only only one of these was even an "activist" in the usual meaning of the word. This deserves a mention in the article since all these incidents are linked in the sources. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I collapsed it because I did not perceive the discussion was focused around improving the article. It's a more polite way redirect conversation than simply deleting or archiving irrelevant talk contents outright. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with deletion of page with topic "Howlader"
Sorry Jclemens if I have texed in the wrong place. I was trying to find out how to write to you to undo the delte of my article. You have deleted an article "Howlader" which was dedicated to the people who carries that surname. I have done a wide research by talking to people with the same surname and gathered those data. If you searc details on it, you will find that there aren't any and people remain thirsty about it as there are a huge number of people who shares the same surname. I wanted to make it a starting point for their refernece and them to contribute more to that.

I would request you to undo the delte which you have done and would be more obliged. The log for the article was "21:15, 24 November 2009 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "Howlader" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: original research on non-notable surname)"

Thanks - Suman (125.16.94.129 (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I've restored it, but I'm doubtful that it will survive an AfD without some serious improvement. It needs reliable sources which talk specifically about the etymology of the surname in question. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

SyFy Portal "Awards"
Please take a look at Articles for deletion/SyFy Genre Awards - these mentions were added in some time ago as part of a pattern of self-promotion by the owner of the site. There's no indication that the awards are notable in any way, and your blind reverts of my clean-up efforts are a mistake. I will be going through and re-removing the information unless you can show me some proof that it should remain. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement is patently false, actually, since I've added a few of those myself. If you insist on edit-warring instead of discussing, I will seek another admin to block you for disruptive editing; there's nothing so wrong with the status quo that it can't wait for a full discussion including outside opinions.  Also, as I mentioned on your talk page, there's no reason that article content must be notable. Quite the opposite, per WP:NNC, in fact. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Patently false"? Show me some evidence that the awards are in any way notable - other than massive amounts of self-promotion from the owners of the site, I can't find *any* discussion of these things in reputable publications... And please, don't threaten me with an edit-warring report after you blindly reverted MANY legitimate edits from me tonight without discussion first. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not listening.
 * 1) Notability is not required for article content.
 * 2) Your edits weren't positive. In fact, they removed sourced, verifiable content; see #1.
 * 3) If anyone re-reverts any edit without discussion, a warning for incipient edit warring is in order. Sorry if you took it personally, but you've been removing content from a score or more of articles. BRD is designed to trigger discussion before the initiator starts redoing reverted edits.
 * 4) I can personally attest that your statement that "these mentions were added in some time ago as part of a pattern of self-promotion by the owner of the site" is false, because I added them personally to Whedonesque.com, at the very least. While some of the edits may, in fact, have been COI, assuming bad faith for all such edits is counterproductive.
 * So... who else would you like to invite to the discussion? We can start with 3O if you like, but I think jumping straight to a wider but appropriate venue would be a better next logical step. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you restore/provide the text of a deleted article?
Hi, you deleted the UPWA Pro Wrestling article (uncontested PROD) but I think it might now satisfy the WP:N criteria (it has been placed on television and is one of the most popular programs in the south. It also draws 100's of fans weekly to the shows.). Thanks. DonnieB657701 (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I've tagged it for notability and sourcing, however.  Do feel free to remove those tags once you've appropriately remedied the issues. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES Overhaul
Hi, I reverted your reversion to the WP:OUTCOMES page. There is a lengthy rationale for the overhaul, with an area to comment disagree, and instructions for what to do if you disagree with some of the changes, but not all of them. I don't think a particular change in an edit "torpedoes" the entire edit, when one can go in and change the offending line/paragraph. This overhaul comes with some consensus after a lengthy discussion with multiple administrators and many editors. Please give it a chance before throwing the entire thing out. And if you are going to dump it or edit it, please say why on the talk page in the section created for comments/debate. Thank you. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I must apologize. In my reversion edit summary I should have said "Please read the talk page before you undo, as per the original edit summary," instead of "You need to read the talk page before you undo, as per the original edit summary." It isn't an order, it is a request. Poor choice of words. My bad. ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 22:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you restore/provide the text of a deleted article?
Hi, you deleted the Anna Leddra Chapman article (uncontested PROD) but I think it might now satisfy the WP:N criteria (she's released two singles, one of which is currently receiving repeated plays on the UK's most popular radio show). Thanks. QmunkE (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Restored, and ready for you to update with the new info. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ta. QmunkE (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Joseph A. Spadaro
As I see that you blocked him and asked to be consulted before any unblock, this is to let you know that following an request on User talk:64.252.115.254 I have restored the user and talk pages of this user, which had been deleted, and advised him to read the Guide to appealing blocks before requesting an unblock. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. All Mr. Spadaro needs to do is say "I won't do again what led to me being blocked"--which was asserting the guilt of living persons in Talk:Murder of Robert Eric Wone.  I'm perfectly happy to have him back as a contributor in good graces, but intransigent refusal to honor BLP led to the indef.  Indef != permanent, of course, and as soon as he demonstrates his understanding of what happened and his willingness to not defame folks on Wikipedia, we're good. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DJ Frank E Deleted Page Edits
Hi, you deleted my DJ Frank E article for copyright infringement and you also suggested to add more sources. I've made some changes to the text, added more sources, and also had it reviewed in the requests for feedback section. I just wanted to see if you minded taking a look at it before I try moving it back to the main space. Thanks for your time! User:Chrismarez/DJ Frank E Chrismarez (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, but if you've addressed the cause of any speedy deletion criteria (such as copyvio), there's no particular need to consult the deleting admin before restoring it to mainspace. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible BLP issue
Could you take a minute to look at the recent edits and discussion in the article on Hal Moore? I have also requested input at the BLPN regarding it, but the contributing editor is becoming aggressive and making edit war complaints. Unless I am mistaken, 3RR has an exception for some BLP issues, but regardless, I don't want to get into an edit war. Perhaps input from a disinterested admin would help. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking... but I simply don't have time to help this week, sorry. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Arbitration Committee Elections
We need to contact you privately to discuss a potential issue with your vote in the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, however you do not have email enabled in your preferences. Could you please get in touch, either by email to, or find me on IRC (I'm in #mediawiki most of the time). Many thanks.

For the election officials,

Happy ‑ melon 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Calcutta
Hi! I noticed that you deleted Calcutta (band) after it was prod'ed. I was away and so I wasn't able to respond to the prod. I looked at WP:BAND and I think it satisfies 1,9, and 10. They have been written about (you can look at the links in the original article). They were also featured on the radio and also were on the sound track for ESPN NHL2K (reference in the original article). They also won Battle of the Bands at UCLA (I don't know if that counts as a major competition though). I realize details are a bit sparse, but I think they have been featured enough to be notable. Let me know what you think. Thanks! -- vi5in [talk] 23:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Restored the article. Please go ahead and add sources for these details before someone else nominates it for AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- vi5in [talk] 18:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax(talk) 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


A NobodyMy 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. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Realtek Media Player page
Hi! I've seen you deleted the Realtek Media Player page. Here is my proposal : User:Bikepunk2/Realtek_Media_Player

Since I'm still new on wikipedia, I would like to know if my stub is ok for you or not. And also if I should make a redirect from AvRack and RtlRack ?

thanks in advance Bikepunk2 (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

List of problematic prods
Could you make list of articles that User:Miami33139 has prodded and have been deleted? I found that klibc has disappeared because it's Non-notable software article that only has primary sources, and this is the first hit on google books on klibc. Miami is currently involved in an ArbCom case because of stuff like this. Thanks, Pcap ping  12:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what I'm worried about. Part of the reason why made a batch of AfD nominations recently was to see how bad can one (I) screw up with just a few quick google searches before nomination, and for software that I don't know much about (Mac). I'd say I'm nowhere near the track record that Miami managed. Pcap ping  15:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored Klibc for now, I'll look into the other stuff later. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked that the klibc article actually had the obvious reference in when it was deleted, especially when the reason was Non-notable software article that only has primary sources. The book is obviously not written by the software's author. Pcap ping  00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, there are a LOT of prods that have been deleted at his behest. How would you like me to go about it? Are you blanket-challenging all his PRODs?  That's certainly your right, but might be viewed as disruptive by some.  I don't mind doing it if it's your well-considered response, but realize that most likely somewhere between "most" and "the vast majority" of the PRODs are articles that really should go away. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A blanket challenge would not be appropriate. I added a prod2 to a couple of articles he prodded fairly recently&mdash;I don't remember the names now; they should be in my deleted contribs right before my first edit to DenyHosts, where I contested the prod, and then the AfD. So, some of Miami's prodding is appropriate. But there were too many instances when what I see as minimal due diligence was not observed. If you can provide me with a list of articles that were deleted by his prodding, I can check them against obvious sources and contest the appropriate ones. He seems to always use twinkle to prod, so filtering the list of his deleted contribs for prods should be easy (by edit summary). If there's a lot of them, we can proceed in increments, I don't need have to have to a full list right away; for ArbCom purposes there was more than enough evidence. I'm interested in restoring the worthy material, and there's no deadline. Thanks, Pcap ping  00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it occurred to me how to do that. What you now have in your email is the last 119 (going back through 2009) entries where he made an edit with "PROD" in the summary, where the article was later deleted.  It's quite possible that some of these were deprodded and later AFD'ed. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Klibc again
Please restore the talk page too. That article was also sent to AfD in 2007 and it closed as no consensus. I'm pretty sure prodding it in those circumstances is not kosher, but I want to see how obvious the previous afd was, i.e. whether it linked on the talk page. Thanks, Pcap ping  01:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk page restored. And yes, PRODs are not supposed to be executed after an AfD discussion, but I'll freely admit to not always checking myself. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some one has suggested that this be moved to the Linux boot process. That is more sensible than the deletion. Bpringlemeir (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That was me, after reading the references and expanding the article. :-) Pcap ping  10:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

JetAudio
Could you undelete this too? I don't know if the article was about the player or the entire company, but the player got reviewed in mainstream newspapers like la Republica, and the company gets 800 google news archive hits, many in East Asian sources. Pcap ping  10:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, add away. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Move Networks
Hi,

I am interested in creating an article on Move Networks, a company which provides online streaming HD TV for ABC, ESPN, and Fox. I noticed that the last time it was created you deleted it, due to it being written as advertising. How could I write it so it would not be deleted, especially considering this firm has many notable clients?

jj (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * JJ, thanks for asking. The primary criterion isn't whether or not a business or service has a lot of clients, but whether reliable sources unrelated to the subject of the article have written about it.  Press releases, the company's own website, and the like don't count, but newspapers, magazines, and the like are excellent sources.  Once you have multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability, self-published sources are useful to verify specific facts about the subject.  Of course, content that appears self-promotional will typically be deleted: write the article so that it's describing the company, not hyping it or soliciting business. Does that make sense? Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT about WP:IN-U
Would it be cool if I went around and started removing any real-world context I found in the WP:WikiProject Babylon 5 articles? I ask because I have a strong opinion that removing any real-world context or element deprives the reader under WP:IN-U. Any people involved with creating the fictional work to me clearly fall under a "pro-WP:IN-U" stance. Insofar as Navbars guide the reader within the scope of articles under the project, they seem to fall under WP:IN-U, as they can serve the purpose of creating more real-world context. I'm having a huge problem with this edit. This was an out-of-BRD revert after my pointing out the guideline (and the lack of Project notification) here. The edit kills much of what little real world context we might have in all WP:WikiProject Babylon 5 articles simultaneously. It kind of makes much of my research for the last two months pointless, if we're throwing out WP:IN-U now (which I wouldn't mind, I just hadn't heard that WP:IN-U was up for deletion from the guidelines). I really need some help with this, but I'm starting to understand why all the other editors have since left the Project. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm really not processing this well. I'm just popping in occasionally this week.  POINT is a bad thing to violate, even if you're actually improving the encyclopedia--other editors will skin you alive if you've violated POINT from their perspective, not yours. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not mean for you to take the sarcasm seriously, as it was not meant that way; only meant as an attention-getter.
 * I also understand you're busy and probably won't read this, nonetheless it needs expressing.
 * As I understand it, WP:IN-U is a guideline for the entire encyclopedia. As I understand it, WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is a WikiProject.  As I understand it, when the two conflict, the guideline wins.  (Note: just came across evidence of this on Farmbrough's Talk page:  "On a more generic note it has been said many times that projects do not trump general guidelines." &mdash;Farmbrough, Rich, 17 December 2009.)
 * As I understand it, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is not any of the fictional WikiProjects that it has arbitrarily set down law for. As I understand it, when another WikiProject does want to set down law for many (probably dozens) of WikiProjects outside its scope, it is polite to notify those WikiProjects ahead of time of the discussion to step on dozens of WikiProjects not in its scope.  Perhaps they only forgot to notify WikiProject Babylon 5.  It nevertheless is a major oversight and inappropriate within the rules to go ahead with a change that I feel is well outside style guidelines without seeking maximum input first.
 * It didn't happen. From my POV as an editor, a WikiProject made a unilateral decision affecting many other WikiProjects without proper notification of individuals editing within the scope of fictional works, nor with consideration of the guidelines (IN-U) for writing on fictional topics in the encyclopedia.
 * The argument goes like this: In evaluating the articles within the scope of WP:WikiProject Babylon 5, what identified problems are there that obviously need fixing?  One of the most obvious that comes right to the top is that there are relatively huge IN-U problems here.  Before looking at how to clear those problems, the questions arises:  What possible, eansy-weensy little way might these articles be out-of-universe here?  When the question is asked, my eyeballs see the creative people (actors, writers, etc.&mdash;real world) on the Navbar that stick out like a sore thumb:  That is the barest out-of-universe argument we can make in some cases.  It's now gone.  From all 300 articles in the Project.  That's major.  It goes in exactly the wrong direction, putting the fictional articles far back in-universe from where they were before (where before they had say 1% out-of-universe, now they start looking like 0.01% out of universe, only Straczynski is left in some cases, and I suppose he'll be going soon, and not with our consent within the Project).
 * I tried to follow the guidelines and absolutely not the edicts of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, a Project I have no interest in. I guess was incorrect to do so, or even bother to try.
 * What I found out was even more insidious about how this was being done: When I first saw the Navbars being removed from the actors bio's I checked the edits and shrugged:  The Navbars indeed "didn't link there" as the edit summaries stated.  I thought to myself, "Well, that's stupid, the right thing to do is to fix the Navbars".  But I didn't pay it much mind because it was other fictional Projects Navbars that had the deficiency I checked on:  The B5 Navbar did not have the deficiency.  Only later, much too late, I found out that the editor who was removing the Navbars from the bio's had been removing the actors from the other Project's Navbars first, then arguing "doesn't link here".  That's highly deceptive editing:  I saw with my own two eyes what was happening, checked on it, and I was directly deceived by what I saw going on based on the edit summaries and evidence in the other Navbars.
 * I'm more than a little miffed. I thought I was editing inside the guidelines, but I'm finding that more and more pointless, since it's now been made clear by the reverts to the B5 Navbar of that Actors' Project editor that any old WikiProject can trump encyclopedia-wide guidelines any time it feels like it.  The editor did not respond in edit summary to the idea that a guideline beats an opinion of a WikiProject.  Instead that editor merely repeated the same argument about "padding", one that I feel fails all-round, as being a mere WEDONTLIKEIT (we, in the Actor's Project, don't like it when you, in the fiction Project, try to to go just a little bit out-of-universe in your Project) argument, not a very strong argument for information removal outside the scope of your own Project.
 * I'm sorry to lay this on you, but you're the closest thing to a) Someone who knows the B5 Project (and policy and guidelines), and b)  Someone who hasn't totally walked away from the B5 Project.  I really can't say I mind the 2400 edits or so I've made inside the Project being ignored the last three months; that's really no big deal, it's not why I've made the edits.  But then to have all that progress moved two steps back after I tried to take it one tiny step forward is highly disconcerting.
 * I'm in the middle of drafting a message for the B5 Project Talk, if it interests you at all. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So after I'm finished with today's funeral, I will be back on Wikipedia more, and will give this the thoughtful reading and detailed response commensurate with the thought you've put into it. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My gratitude. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I'd like to mention that over the weekend I re-wrote an episode article with WP:IN-U in mind. See before and after, and please feel free to suggest, edit and trout.  I also began a skeletal outline to re-organize the List of locations article, mainly to take advantage of the TOC's ability to lay out in two dimensions the universe so I and the reader can see the scope of it, but also to help other editors to understand how and where to make additions to the article.  'Course I have to go through and add all the real world references to it while I'm at it... &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I understand now. First, is it "OK" to remove a link, and then charge "doesn't link here"?  Not really.  That's deceptive, indeed, and basically sucks.  A better approach is to let the B5 navbar or articles link to the actors' pages, but acquiesce to the removal of the project-specific navbars from the actors' pages where it makes sense.  It does not make sense to unlink B5 from Jerry Doyle, because it was his first and biggest claim to fame--Garibaldi is his signature role.  B5 is a much smaller part of Bruce Boxleitner's career, however, so it's a lot more reasonable to not have a B5 navbar on his bio page.  Make sense? Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, this was my basic thinking on the issue as well: Within Wikiproject Actors and Filmmakers, the argument is "Navbars are messy" in actor's bios:  I can't really argue that:  Again, that's not a WikiProject that interests me (in some cases I agree; they do start looking messy).
 * However, within the fictional Wikiprojects, actors on the Navbars are by definition "pretty", specifically because WP:IN-U is not just a guideline, it is a specific style guideline. By definition, therefor, any time you get to go out-of-universe, you are being "pretty" (regardless of how bad the output looks:  The point was to inform the reader of a real world reference).
 * The accusation of "padding" in the edit summaries is causing me some consternation, because the pre-supposition behind the accusation seems to me that we fictional Wikiproject editors are somehow editing in bad faith to add out-of-universe references and context to the Navbars. But these are the people that created the fictional work:  I don't know of any case where facts like these are unencyclopedic.  I'm offended enough to not be able to address the issue directly without support.  What is the proper venue when a disagreement crosses Wikiprojects?  WP:RFC?  WP:3O?
 * In the revision history I'm at 2RR, and I can't go any farther: I thought my edit summaries spoke volumes about the removal. I can't even open discussion on the Talk page (because I'm still miffed about another editor editing against consensus on another subject there on 5 Nov after I spent days researching and then gaining consensus (probably against all three editors common sense:  The source wins against the editors), and pointing it out to the editor who then edited outside consensus (pretty minor though overall, I suppose, I'm just in to presenting encyclopedic citable fact rather than subjective opinion, is all)).  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So is there a next step? I'm tempted to re-add the actors to the Navbar by hand.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Explain please?
Could you please explain what you feel is so problematic about Articles for deletion/Snak? Personally I feel a straight vote count, as you suggested I engaged in, would have incorrectly prompted to an outright "keep" outcome, rather than the more suitable "no consensus". Thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. The fact that you have to ask, however, has its own consequences. (added later: Namely that I'm switching from oppose to strong oppose in your RfB Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Step through the AfD in its entirety:
 * 1) The nom. Pretty standard, in that asserts no sources (implying that a search was done), failing N.  That version of the article makes it seem completely reasonable.
 * 2) Two delete !votes. Both appear to be looking at this version of the article--tagged for rescue, but not otherwise improved. One explicitly states that a search was conducted unsuccessfully.
 * 3) DreamFocus !votes keep, after making this edit, which added three RS'es. Here's where the tide starts turning.  All of a sudden, the three delete !votes no longer reflect the article's current state.  It also calls into question the effectiveness of the searches implied or expressly stated above (AGF'ing that such were in fact conducted).  At this point, the proper close could not be delete: The three !votes were invalidated by later editing that improved the article, and will remain irrelevant to the state of the article until and unless the !voters revisited the debate and asserted a new or updated rationale.
 * 4) Tothwolf lists an additional reference in the AfD, suitable for inclusion in the article, bring the RS total to 4 and further undermining the previous 3 delete !votes. At this point, a keep !vote is quite reasonable, but a No Consensus might be plausible based solely on nose-counring.
 * 5) Ron Ritzman relists it with an appropriate DELSORT. Should have been done before, but now we should get some editors who've self-selected to monitor software notability.
 * 6) Milowent !votes keep, calling the references sufficient and pointing out that the nominator and one of the !voters have been collaboratively making and supporting multiple poorly-researched nominations. At this point, nose counting is 3-3, policy-based arguments are 3-0 for keeping the article.  Keep is clearly the correct outcome, and no consensus is fading into the background.
 * 7) An IP !votes keep, giving two more printed references (total of 6 RS now), including to an O'Reilly and Associates book. One can be forgiven for not knowing this, but there is nothing--nothing--about computers that is both non-notable and covered by an O'Reilly book, period. That ref is the nail in the coffin of no consensus.
 * Thus, at the end of the AfD, you have 4 consecutive !votes, three of which cited good RS'es that undermined the accuracy of the first 3 !votes. None of the initial delete !voters, including the nom, appears to have revisited the improved article or its deletion discussion. By closing it as no consensus, you appear to have...
 * Failed to evaluate the accuracy of !votes that asserted specific facts.
 * Failed to follow the trending of the !votes.
 * Failed to evaluate the improvement in the article between nomination and the close of the AfD discussion.
 * That is a detailed, blow-by-blow analysis of the process of improving an article during a deletion discussion. This is almost a textbook rescue case: Someone makes an ignorant nom based on the article's state and a poor or nonexistent source search, someone comes along and finds and adds sources, and everyone afterwards !votes keep.
 * That, Julian, is a keep, and your failure to see that undermines my faith in your ability to close AfD's appropriately. Anyone can go too fast, count noses, and make a mistake, but the failure to see the mistake on closer inspection is very troubling. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty strongly worded. First, I think you should understand that the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is marginal at best and has no bearing whatsoever on the end result, so it's fairly pointless to argue about it. Additionally, your statement that my honest question will have "consequences" is a bit concerning, and I'd definitely like to know what you mean by that. Nonetheless, I'll attempt to address your points. The initial arguments for deletion were entirely valid at the time, and had the article not been referenced and expanded I would have seen no reason to discount them or assign them less weight in my evaluation of the discussion. You're correct in that the subsequent keep votes largely invalidate them, but the refutations weren't exactly impeccable, either. Milowent's vote (no disrespect intended towards him) doesn't focus specifically on that article, but instead addresses the broader dispute at hand. That brings up another point, though—that article and related pages were, and probably still are, under dispute by various editors, and that further complicates the AfD beyond a standard debate. Your play-by-play analysis of the discussion—while insightful—doesn't seem too far separated from a mere compilation of the number of votes, and, to be honest, I still don't see why I should doubt my initial decision. AfD is not a vote, and by my interpretation of the discussion and surrounding context I did not see any way in which the article could have been closed as anything other than "no consensus" if I wished to choose the most fitting result and avoid further dispute. So, could you please explain what "consequences" you speak of, and how you feel your trust in my ability to close XfDs has declined? Best regards. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, got distracted with my kids. The only "consequence" of note is my switching from oppose based on your age, to strong oppose based on that and this discussion.
 * The difference between no consensus and keep is indeed occasionally blown out of proportion by certain users, but there's a distinction there for a reason. At the time of your close, there were zero delete !votes that were relevant in that they had both policy support and factual accuracy.  Even throwing out Milowent's !vote, which I agree was the weakest of the keeps, that's 3-0 keep.  That's not no consensus, no matter how you slice it.  That's about as strong a keep consensus as we ever get around here aside from speedy and SNOW keeps. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree in that case. I still don't believe it warrants such a blunt response, though. Thanks for explaining your thoughts and following up. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I caused this debate, I feel obliged to add that I fully agree with Jclemens' analysis. Taking into account delete !votes that specifically refute the validity of sources presented towards establishing notability is one thing, but taking into account delete "no sources" !votes that were cast before such sources were presented seems pretty odd. A "no consensus" close is not without consequence, because it encourages another AfD after some time. For example, one of delete voters there even prodded another article which had sources cited in it added during an AfD that closed as "no consensus"; the article (klibc) even got deleted on that prod. Pcap ping  06:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In fairness, I should comment as a regular at DRV that it is highly unlikely that DRV would vote to overturn the close to a keep and that while Julian closes more AFDs then I do, I am much more likely to be taken to DRV for my closings then Julian is. On the other hand, I personally agree with this analysis of the close and would also have kept this had I closed this AFD. The acid test for me is that experienced users asserted that sourcing had been found and this was not rebutted by the delete side. To my view this means the most valid policy based argument is that there are sources. This should be a straight keep. Julian does do a lot of no-consensus closes. I have no idea why this is, but I see a lot of them that could reasonably be closed as either keep or delete rather then no-consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 15:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's probably because I usually end up closing the stale discussions that are left behind, so they're not as straightforward as most AfDs. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Julian's point that there's not much difference between a "no consensus" and a "keep" is well taken, and I doubt anyone would ever take such a close to DRV--I certainly wouldn't. On the face of it, it looks like a sloppy but harmless close error, and only in the face of a "So what was wrong with it?" query does the close become truly concerning. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)