User talk:Jclemens

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Welcome, correspondents If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
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...

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

René Roemersma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to restore Org Maker

Um, hi Jclemens.

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

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

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

Django CMS

Hi Jclemens

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

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

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

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

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

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

So thank you for your help and time!

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

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

A Shoggoth on the Roof

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

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

Hi

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

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

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

Deletion review for RaRa

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

RaRa DRV -- Draft ready

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

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

Lloyd R. Woodson mess

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

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

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

Deletion of Mark Stephen Gray

Hi,

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

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Thanks in advance,

David Wright

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

Mohamed Taidara

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

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

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