User talk:Jclemens

Welcome, correspondents I occasionally do recent changes patrolling. If I reverted your edits, there's a large likelihood I did so for one or more of the following reasons:

1. No edit summary, especially for a removal. I can't read your mind. If you removed content that was a copyvio or an ad, you can either tell everyone by including an accurate edit summary, or not. If you don't, you stand a higher chance of getting reverted, because I have yet to meet any other recent changes patroller who can read minds, either.
2. No sourcing, especially for a controversial change. I don't normally revert non-outlandish changes unless I have personal knowledge that the original was more reasonable, but if you are going to make a change to a biography, the burden is on you to source it, especially if you want to assert that the existing article was radically incorrect with regard to any protected class.

If you include a good source and a good edit summary, odds of me reverting you are quite small indeed. If you still have questions about why I made a particular reversion, don't hesitate to start a new topic at the bottom of the page and ask why: I am always willing to explain my reasoning.

If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

GAR

Good Samaritan law has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Justin St. Vincent

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

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

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

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

Blessings and Best Regards,

Justin St. Vincent Director & Founder Xtreme Music

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

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

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

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

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

Technology in Stargate

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

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

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

Rationality

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

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

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

Recent Deletion

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

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

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

Celtic Gallaecia

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

Kingston Hospital Radio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mazes and Minotaurs

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

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

Help

Hi,

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

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

Homewood Mountain Resort

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

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

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

Brandon Harrison (American football, born 1986)

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

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

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

John van Bruggen

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

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

A little fast?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Bekman Gallery

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

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

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

Tradable Smoking Pollution Permits

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

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

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

Service awards proposal

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