User talk:Jclemens

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...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

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

Please restore Floorlords article/bio

Hello, I was interested in finding out more about one of drummer Chuck Biscuits' early bands, The Floorlords (formerly located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Floorlords&action=edit&redlink=1). I was disappointed to see the article was deleted. Could you please consider restoring this article/band biography? Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.214.64 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it, and there's nothing about it that meets the notability expectations of WP:BAND: it claims the band released only one single before self-destructing, and doesn't assert that that single charted anywhere. Not every early band is notable and deserves its own article. Indeed, it would seem much more appropriate to include what is encyclopedic about the band in Biscuits' own article, since none of the other members of the band appear to have ever done anything notable. Of course, the article was deleted two years ago and things may have radically changed, but that's what I see, based on the review of the article as it was deleted. I can make a copy of the article in user space for you to work on. Would that be helpful? Jclemens (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please restore Ideal firm size, deleted as a "PROD"

You said you don't want a detailed explanation, so I won't give one, unless you request it. StuRat (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored, feel free to work on the concerns expressed in the original PROD request. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Alexis Fields

Hello, Jclemens. On the subject of the Alexis Fields article. Since you closed the my last deletion review argument on the subject of the article: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 5. I am coming to you because you seem the most understanding of my predicament. Yesterday, I contacted Ms. Fields herself through Twitter, she gave me permission to re-create the page and I even asked to make her own suggestions in my userspace for her: User:QuasyBoy/Alexis Fields. Other than two minor edits, she said the page was fine. Here are the series of tweets I shared with her: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I have tried to find other so-called "appropriate" sources for the actress, but to no avail. This one of those cases where biographical information is difficult to find, there are certainly a number of other Wikipedia bios of so called not very popular actors like Ms. Fields with this same problem. Basically, what I am saying is, I don't know what else to do on this subject. QuasyBoy 04:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I would suggest:

• For the notable performances she's been in, at the very least get a cast list from somewhere that documents her presence. RS if possible, promotional/primary is acceptable if no one else lists her. I added one for you I found using Google News Archive--there appear to be any number of others, some of which are pay per view.
• Try and find review material on those works which mention her, for good or ill, and construct a "reception" section.

The lack of substantiation for the details of her personal life isn't super relevant, so long as there's enough material to establish that she's met either the WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I will try that. :) QuasyBoy 05:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I added three more sources from Google Books. Some of them are pretty redundant info, But I guess in this case that's OK. QuasyBoy 05:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I took your suggestions and the page looks even better now, I think. It good enough to move out of userspace now? QuasyBoy 06:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks somewhat better... but I really don't know whether I'd call it good enough or not. If you can find enough reviews which comment on her to make a reception section, then I would definitely move it back to mainspace. For now... eh, it might get G4'ed again, even with the improvements, and that doesn't help anyone. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with "reception" sections in biographies for actors, at least as long as I have been editing on this site. Generally that is for articles on music (albums/songs), films and television series. Also, I'm sure the article will not get G4'd if are vouching also considering that this version of the article is the MOST improved on the subject. You have been very helpful than any other administrator in my process of re-creation. QuasyBoy 18:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

True... for actors, it's often an "awards" section... but she doesn't have any awards, does she? How, without such a section, do you intend to establish notability? Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dang, no awards or nominations. I guess that's problem, huh. QuasyBoy 21:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you need to be able to articulate how she meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. I think the second is easier than the first, since she has recurring roles in multiple shows. Be sure to make sure that anyone who reads just the lead can see that there's a sourced claim of notability there. That should help stave off G4, even if they want to take the article back to AfD. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That was my argument before in the deletion review. She basically meets the fist rule in WP:ENTERTAINER. Ms. Fields only Achilles' heel is that she has never had regular role in an actual series. Her situation is not too different from another actress Emmanuelle Vaugier, she had recurring roles in multiple series, but never a regular role thus far in her career. Only difference is, she has starred in more notable films and has made Maxim Hot 100 lists. QuasyBoy 22:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Theatre Project collaboration

Thanks for the invitation, but I doubt I'll have time to participate. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please reinstate the article on Matt's Script Archive

I was disappointed to see that the article on Matt's Script Archive had been deleted. This website was instrumental in helping many people like myself find out how to create interactive web pages using Perl CGI scripts prior to the advent of PHP. It was a hugely popular, and I would argue important, website back in the late '90s. I'd always wondered who Matt Wright was and what made him start up this free resource for budding Web designers like myself, back in the days when most websites consisted of completely static HTML pages. However, it was not until today that I'd got round to looking this up, and Wikipedia was my natural first port of call.

I don't have any connection to Matt Wright or his script archive (which I haven't used, or even looked for, in years), and I've never seen the article that you deleted. I just know that this website was hugely influential in the spread of Perl as the server-side language of the Web for a few years prior to PHP and ASP, and long before Ruby. Personally I think this website deserves a page in the history of Web programming - if only to talk about how open to exploit some of those scripts were (including, I remember, early versions of the Matt Wright's widely used FormMail.pl script).

I'd appreciate it if you could consider reinstating this article. Thanks. Itauthor (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Please go ahead and see if you can add references or otherwise improve that article. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Alistair Christie (ITauthor) 05:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itauthor (talk • contribs)

Email sent

I've sent email. Thanks for your post to my page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And I've replied. Sorry for the delay! Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Phyrexia

Hi. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia, community consensus (as expressed by all editors who participated in the discussion except for you and Hobit) was that the article Phyrexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be deleted rather than merged. Nonetheless, after the discussion was closed as "delete" by Wizardman, you restored the article's history with the rationale: "restoring under redirect to expand into merge target". I don't object to the redirect, but the restoration of the article's history is contary to consensus as established in the AfD discussion. As I assume you know, if you disagree with the closing administrator's finding of consensus, you can challenge it at WP:DRV. I would therefore like to ask you to comply with the AfD's consensus outcome and re-delete the article's history. Regards,  Sandstein  06:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to walk you through the process. "New Phyrexia" is a major Magic: the Gathering product offering from Wizards of the Coast. It's launching in a couple of weeks (product release info here. The bare outcome of the AfD would have left Phyrexia a redlink, which is silly, given the relative coverage of other Magic information and the impending product release. No problem, since a merge target was identified in the AfD (and not by me, I might add; my solution favors a wholesale merging of subordinate articles which wasn't taken up by anyone in the AfD)--I'll just create it and have done with it. Only, this version of Plane (Magic: The Gathering), has nothing but a link to the now-deleted article. So what to do? If I just crib the content from the deleted article, that would be a license violation. So, I undeleted the former revisions underneath the redirect, to comply with the licensing, and merged about two sentences from the lead of the now-deleted article into the target: adhering to appropriate licensing has precedence over procedure. I also added a bit of new content on my own, along with two refs: one primary (Wizards') and one secondary (MTV Geek). And, to make sure that what I did wouldn't enable some random drive-by undoing, I semi-protected the redirect for a month.

However, even if the restoration wasn't required by licensing, the AfD concerns you enumerated have all been eliminated: V is met, N is not a factor for content in a larger article (and can probably be met anyways), all the GAMEGUIDE stuff is gone from the merged content, and the material now in the merge target has been sourced. I trust you're happy that the encyclopedia has been appropriately improved in a way that complies with licensing requirements. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for explaining why you undeleted the history out of process, although I in your place would not have done so. I would not have merged the sentence "It is often called the final Hell for artifacts, or simply The Nine Hells", which seems to be the only text you merged. Not only is the sentence still(!) unsourced, but it is also poor encyclopedic writing, since it seems to adopt an in-universe point of view (real people do not "often" call Phyrexia "The Nine Hells", they call it a fictional world) and the cringe-worthy "is often called" calls for a {{by whom}} template. Finally, your merger edit did not include a wikilink to the source article, as it would have been required to for attribution. I have deleted the deficient sentence (supplying the lacking wikilink in the process) and, since attribution is now no longer required, re-deleted the history of the source article per WP:CSD#G4. I suggest that it would be better to re-write any substantial content about Phyrexia from scratch in the "Planes" article, citing sources as one writes, rather than copying unsourced scraps from the deleted article.  Sandstein  08:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's a poor summary for Phyrexia anyhow. Instead, I would say something about it being the mechanized realm created by Yawgmoth, which is a key setting for many MTG expansions including Antiquities and the Invasion block, and several MTG novels (which I've never read), and that it is alluded to in many other sets through the entire Weatherlight series and apparently in the upcoming New Phyrexia set. The old Phyrexia article did a pretty good job laying it out, and was correct as far as I can tell. This is probably the second most important plane in the MTG fantasy universe, and I think it would be much easier to cite the propositions in the old article than rewrite it from scratch. Therefore, would you mind undeleting it and moving it to my userspace, Sandstein? I would bring it up to code, then ask you to restore it to article space (or through DRV if you are unavailable). Cool Hand Luke 13:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that you've recently merged Ravnica in essentially the same way, save the AfD, that I merged Phyrexia. Is there a particular problem of Ravnica vs. Phyrexia such that you see a disparity in the outcome as a proper thing? Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes; Ravnica had a source (if only primary ones: the novels and the manufacturer's webpage), which made the content minimally verifiable and thus mergeable.  Sandstein  08:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, I would consider the nominator of a page for deletion as "involved", i.e. having an opinion on it, and hence one shouldn't be performing admin actions (redeleting in this case) with respect to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't considered that making a G4 deletion would be controversial, but I guess you are right that it would have been better from a procedural point of view if I had made a speedy deletion request instead of re-deleting the history myself. Though I suppose the same applies to Jclemens's undeletion and partial merging of the article after he argued at length for that outcome in the AfD.  Sandstein  11:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe call it quits, neither of you does anything more with this particular deleted/undeleted/redeleted content (rewrites being a different matter) and both of you being that tad more careful about the appearance of things in the future.....? Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC) ETA it's very easy to miss that you're involved/out of process when what you want to do seems obvious, I've done it myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay - maybe the take-home message is a general one that closing admins should be more specific with review of consensus i.e. is the term a valid search term etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw this discussion linked from WT:Articles for deletion#"Involved" status of nominator. This has similarities with Conquest X-30 and H.I.S.S., which I listed at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21. I have been planning to start a discussion at WT:Articles for deletion regarding what process is appropriate before restoring articles for merging. I think that it doesn't need an RfC for two disputes. Does anyone (particularly Jclemens or Sandstein) have input? Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a question.

Why is Kingofthosewhoknow blocked?