User talk:Jclemens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
1


Welcome!

Hello, Jclemens, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image:Cuneiform tablet - Kirkor Minassian collection - Library of Congress.jpg

There was no image - it was deleted or something, and I removed the category because this non-image was showing up in the category. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation--that wasn't initially clear from Huggle. Perhaps proposing it for deletion might have been less likely to confuse recent change patrollers? At any rate, I whitelisted you shortly afterwards. Happy Cuneiform maintaining! Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serenity comics overarticle

Alright, its up. I'll try to hunt down what redirects I can, but it would be best if you went through as well, seeing as your edit history will have them all listed. -- saberwyn 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You got the three I added. Thanks for doing the work, it looks much better. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serenity film edits

I have some problems with your edit here. To begin with, at no point in Staite's blog (I thought we tend to avoid those) does she refer to Serenity as the Big Damn Movie. Her reference to BDM is without explanation and seems almost a non-connection of synthesis (ie, knowing that fans call it the BDM and connecting that info with Staite's ambiguous usage of the term) doesn't seem like a clear one. The second source, from Session416.com, seems to be a fan site (I am almost positive that we don't use those at all for citable information). The third source you cited (from Weeklystandard.com) doesn't even mention the words BDM or Big Damn Movie. At all. So, here we have three sources, two of which are the poorest of allowable sources and the third doesn't even note the material supposedly being cited. It cannot remain. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can remain. That's just a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, however. To address the points in question...
  1. I didn't add or modify the Weekly Standard reference, I just restored what was there before without looking at it.
  2. Staite's Blog is authoritative for what Staite says, per WP:SPS. Granted that she doesn't explain what BDM means. Reading it in context of the other blog posts, however, makes it clear that that's what she's referring to.
  3. The Session416 site is a reaction to and later explanation of the "viral marketing" campaign for Serenity. I'm guessing it was authored by one or more fans, but like The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 is a respected, documented, essentially static resource within the limited context of its expertise.
Other possible sources that support that usage are a number of acronym lists, a reader reply to a newspaper-sponsored blog (in sfgate.com), a bunch of posts to whedonesque.com, and thousands of other blogs that Google can find. There's no question that that usage is verifiable, really. The question rather is what and how many sources are sufficient to document it, without filling the reference list with tangentially relevant stuff.
Personally, I think the simple solution is to follow the spirit of WP:SPS--fan sites should be RS for what fans say--and the use of BDM as shorthand is well documented in those contexts. Your thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for responding so quickly. :)
I wasn't kicking you for adding links, only for the edit that added them in the first place. Apparently, we are agreed that the Weekly Standard reference is out, as it doesn't point to the usage implied by the statement. I still have reservations about the Staite reference, as using it implies a bit of synthesis that could easily become a slippery slope; I would feel much better with a reference from Whedon or someone putting BDM, Big Damn Movie and the allusion in one place. the article would certainly be stronger for it. Lastly, fansites as SPS are fairly poor examples for use. True the site is indeed purty, but its essentially unqualified non-RS info being imparted as official. The B5 Lurker's Guide is different in that is backs up everything it says with confirmation from Straczynski or someone else associated with the program. Staite is the talent, not the production, and her comments are rather outside of her purview. Again, finding something more slid only strengthens the article. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was just looking through my copies of The Serenity Visual Companion and Finding Serenity, but I didn't find a reference to BDM in any of those. I don't have the second volume of essays, but the first was published before the movie was released--the latter would be much more likely to have it. Also, there's no question that the fan film, Done the Impossible will have references in it, but it, too, has the Fan film stigma, even if it is released for general sale. It really shouldn't be this much work to document the widespread fan usage--it seems the sourcing threshold should be lower for uncontested facts.
I understand the need to put BDM, Big Damn Movie, and Serenity in one place. I disagree that it needs to be Whedon saying it--the original assertion was that the fans used it regularly to refer to the movie--thus it's more of a reaction to the movie than authorial intent. What about using fan links like FireFlyFans, Whedonesque or UK Browncoats Forum in the specific context of documenting what fans call Serenity?
Also, I have no problem with moving the 'BDM' reference out of the lead section. I just put it back there because that's where it was. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, I didn't mean to imply that Whedon was the only dude we could cite, J. I was thinking that someone on the production (or even marketing side) of the series/film would be better to cite than the talent. As for noting it because the fans started to could be cited, if we can find a news source (or something similar) that notes the phenomena of BDM might be a way out of the problem. I think something similar was done with both the Star Trek and Star Wars stuff, both of whom have sizable fan followings and idiosyncrasies. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the help

Thanks! --213.40.96.218 (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that! I had no idea it was possible to vandalize Wikipedia. I thought it was just a popularity contest. I have much more respect for this site now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.249.86 (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


I would like to add that 100% of what I said was true. Just google it. I will come back one day when the history books are written so I can source my assertions.

If it's true, then feel free to add citations to reliable sources. The standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Decatur

75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Darren75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC) im the one editing the steven decatur page. if you look at the link provided you will see that in the jersey devil page the 1st encounter was steven decatur. is this site not a viable source???? and sorry if im not doing this right

Hi Darren. Can you include citations from reliable sources to document what you've added? It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between real material and nonsense that vandals add. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

i tried to add them but i guess i dont know how. it appears wrong in the article. if you look up jersey devil a steven decatur you will see everything that it brings up all tell of the same enncounter. i believe it should be here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops--my bad. The instructions are at WP:CITE, not [WP:CITE]. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ok i got it now. thanks. learn something new everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Feather Cave (novel)

Hi, the G3 tag you put on this is perfectly appropriate. I sometimes feel reluctant myself to put a speedy tag on an old article, hence the AFD suggestion. Lately I've been changing speedy tags around if the wrong one has been picked, because I think it can be confusing for newbies enough without being given the wrong reason that their article is up for deletion. Cheers Kevin (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! So, no special handling (besides speedy) for articles that claim to have been long-term efforts to undermine Wikipedia's credibility? Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been undermining our credibility for a year already. A few days probably makes no difference. Kevin (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okeydoke. Thanks for the clarification. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slam Stewart

You have reverted my edit to make Slam Stewart an American musician, rather than an African American musician. If for instance Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman and Chick Corea are American musicians, what makes Slam Stewart special to deserve the special mention of ethnicity in the introduction? (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While doing recent changes patrolling, which is what I was doing when I reverted you, I'm looking for vandalism. Changing racial or sexual orientation categories without a citation, even in the absence of "bad words" is always suspect. Likewise, removing or changing specific claims that have existed in an article is more suspect than adding new facts that don't contradict existing contributions. In your case, you're a new user, which raises the level of suspicion as well. On the basis of those three items, I reverted your edit. Thank you for approaching me in a polite manner to assert that your edit was in good faith. The problem with the examples of the other musicians you list is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--since Wikipedia is created by thousands of volunteers, differences in interpretation of guidelines, levels of effort, and such almost guarantee that quality and consistency will vary from article to article within a specific domain. Wikiprojects exist to attempt to balance efforts. If you want to make this edit again, adding an appropriate edit summary such as "change to be consistent with B.Goodman and D.Ellington" that demonstrates a rationale for your change should reduce the chance of another editor reverting you. I will not revert you if you make that change again, given the explanation you've given here. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for keeping Pau Gasol vandalism free!

You deserved it. I know how tedious things like that can be. I make it a point to award people for their hard work in keeping the article I built up to a GA status vandalism free. It's most likely because of the NBA Finals that Gasol is getting vandalism from IPs, I've requested a Semi-Protection lock until a couple days after the NBA Finals are over in hopes that vandalism will cool off by then. Thanks again! Gamloverks (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)