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:

OTRS voicemail tickets.

Check out Help:Voicemail. -- Jeandré, 2011-03-21t13:52z

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

Hello - I came to thank you for removing vandalism to the above article - as if it was my page! - and am now worried this would sound fawning? I suppose I can ask your advice? I have taken the page on as a sort of pet-project: the synopsis seems to be a target for vandalism and I don't particularly like it as it seems uneccasary to me, plus as one commenter pointed out, it seems longer than the book itself (haven't counted, but the book was 225 words long - :( removed that nugget because it seemed to not fit in the head section or anywhere else, ruthless woman that I am). The synopsis might be worth removing but it has been popular and re-instated several times after being removed by others. Any ideas? Cheers! Kathybramley (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking for help isn't fawning. In fact, I should probably take that off of the top of the page, since it happens vanishingly rarely, but I digress. So, on to your question: in my opinion, text should stay or go based on how valuable it is, rather than how often it is vandalized. While we don't have a way to see which parts of an article are read, I think it's pretty safe to assume that everyone arriving at the book's Wikipedia article is expecting to see some sort of a synopsis, so I would recommend against removing it entirely. Having said that, there's no reason it can't be made more succinct. When I'm editing things down, I usually take multiple passes, each time asking of each piece of information "is this necessary?", and each time removing a bit more information while focusing on what I believe to be the core parts that any reader would expect to find in an encyclopedia article. Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Superman (film project)

This is just a notice that Superman (film project) is being proposed for deletion. The discussion can be found here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Commented. Do make sure you follow the expectations of WP:CANVASS in your notifications--I haven't checked, so this is just a blind reminder. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Huggle oops

Sorry about that. That wasn't in the Huggle window when I did it (or at least I don't remember seeing it). ScottyBerg (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No biggie, with Huggle it's hard to not to move too fast sometimes. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually there's no way, using Huggle, that you can see if the old version had preexisting vandalism. However, I notice that the software won't revert to a version from the same IP range, but in this case it reverted back to another vandal's version. That's hard to guard against. In fact it could have happened with a simple undo or by a bot, come to think of it. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't bring it up to ding you on it, so much as to inform you of it. If this is a systemic defect of huggle, then maybe we need to ask for better tools to handle tag-team vandalism... Vandals already know well that e.g. Rollback won't be as effective if two IPs edit rapidly. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I totally realize it was just an fyi note. I guess it definitely is a limitation of Huggle, but I wonder how much vandalism is attributable to coordinated teams of vandals? I have gotten the impression that most vandalism I see is spontaneous stuff by kids. Coordinated vandalism has to be dealt with manually, methinks. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about how many vandals know this and do it intentionally, but it seems to be that "complicated" vandalism falls mostly into either sneaky or tag-team categories. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Incubation project

I know you've been interested in the Incubation project in the past. If you're not too busy reaping miscreants as a hotsy-totsy arbitrator these days (), you might want to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#Use_of_incubation_outside_stated_guidelines. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

more eyes

Based upon recent discussions in several places, I have begun work on an essay that seeks to clarify just how and when discussuion of a film-before-its-filming would per policy merit inclusion in some manner, or per GNG even merit a seperate article. Please look over User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films and offer your insights. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:NFF actually is the better candidate to rewrite. SNGs are additive with the GNG. If there's something that passes the GNG that should actually be excluded, WP:NOT is the place for it. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Desysop

As an arbcom member, have you ever been in a case where someone has been desysopped? If so, how many since Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship was updated?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've only been an ArbCom member since 1 January, and since that time I know of one that has not been finally dispositioned that is not reflected on that page. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1960–1961 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

Can you restore the PROD based 1960–1961 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I will, but WP:NOTTVGUIDE almost certainly applies. You want to merge it somewhere or something? Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems it was requested because someone in this AfD mentioned that, should the result be "Keep all", that article should be restored. Of course, that doesn't really matter now that it was restored anyway, I guess.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I do have to ask though: should the outcome of that AfD turn out to be delete for whatever reason, that specific article would have to be renominated separately, right? Including it in the bunch seems logical for obvious reasons, but I'm sure there's red tape to work around (which is why I assume the editor who first mentioned it asked that it be restored depending on the outcome rather than just right away). Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would object to it being bundled late. Since a PROD could be undeleted at any time, it'll actually add some finality (well, as much as anything is ever final...) to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

AmIRC and XiRCON

Please userfy AmIRC, Talk:AmIRC, XiRCON, and Talk:XiRCON to my userspace. Thanks! --Tothwolf (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Did you realized you'd db-u1'ed the latter two? Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)