User talk:Jclemens/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Adoption

Hello. I see you are up for adoption. If you want, I can help and possibly mentor you out. I just can't officialy adopt you. I have been at wikipedia for anout three months and I have 2500+ mainspace edits out of my 9000+ edits total. What do you think? Plaese reply on my talkpage.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be glad to. First off, do you mean that most of your edits on articles are reverted/removed?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 05:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Not now, no. More than 90% of what I put in is kept--I've managed to figure out how to do that so far on my own. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's actually okay, but I think we can improve that. I am going to check your contributions. In the meantime, try reading some policies located here as it can help. I might be offline soon by the way, but it's unlikely.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 05:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Take your time. I may be headed for bed soon myself, so there's no real sense of urgency here. My next goal is to get whedonesque.com up to GA status, so I've been reading up on that a bit. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Review

First off. I've added the AWB template on your user page just to show your count, total edits, logs, etc. You have a total of 489 edits and 470 undeleted edits. Only 19 of your edits have been deleted/reverted which is a good start. I am proud to see how much you edit in the mainspace and keep that up. I suggest creating more articles. You want to be an admin right? Well it is important if you participate in WP:XFD. I participate in XfD's but more particularly WP:AFD which I consider participating in since your involved in deletion discussions. Other than that, keep up the good work and make sure you make quality edits. Comments? By the way, I suggest not deleting old discussions as you did with a few other discussions. I suggest archiving. When you have the time, I'll set you an archive.-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 15:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the things I care and know enough to write about are already articles, hence my focus on improving existing articles, rather than creating new ones. If the opportunity and need arises, I'm certainly not opposed to creating a new article, but it just hasn't much so far.
I've prod'ed a few articles here and there, and generally had the prods succeed, but am by no means a deletionist. Participating in XFD's for the sake of participating in them isn't too high on my list--what I've advocated deleting has been part of my own good faith effort to improve Wikipedia.
I would archive discussions that had some less ephemeral value--the ones I deleted on this page were mostly conducted elsewhere, which left the fragments here looking orphaned and contextless, hence my deleting them. Is that considered bad form? Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. It's not really bad, it's just a lot better saving any message on your talkpage for future use. And I think it's good your improving articles, but I do suggest creating articles on occasions. Try looking at WP:REQUEST when you have the time as it can give you ideas on what article to write.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 06:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Any questions? -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at the moment, no, thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Chatswong

Why you remove my Chatswong brah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.67.25 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you'll check the page history, another editor has previously removed that slang. If you would like to readd it, I susggest you find a WP:RS to document it. Absent other context, it appears likely to be a racial slur--see WP:Profanity. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


reverted you on Huggle

Just letting you know that your edit happened just as I was reverting an IP here on Huggle. Sorry!:). I was also tagging CSD anyways! Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was a bad edit on my part, so thanks for reverting it. I clicked "OK" but Huggle wasn't picking up that the creator deleted the speedy tag. Today's my first day learning the intricacies of Huggle. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
First day uh! (Unsolicited advice warning) Go slow, or you will have angry traffic jams on your talk page;)Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the heads up. I think I did OK, but I'm taking a break for several hours to see if any more complaints arise. Any other advice as I try and automate vandal fighting? Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Giving a warning

Hey! Just a quick tip: when you revert vandalism like you did here, you should add a warning to the user talk page of the guy who vandalized the article. Thanks! EliAS 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I usually do leave a warning, not sure why one didn't go through on that revert. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay. It's okay then. I just like to remind some users about this, as everyone doesn't know anything about giving warnings. EliAS 19:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you revert my question in the Misc RF? It was a serious one... GoingOnTracks (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You have my sincere apologies. That was clearly an error on my part. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

IP 204.69.139.16

Looking at the edits of 204.69.139.16 (to the article on "suicide") that you reverted, it seems they are restructuring, rather than vandalism. I really lack the expertise to judge whether it's better before or after. In any case it's really important to get that article right, because of this. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize the gravity of the article, and went back and double checked my revert. The edit I reverted simply added five newlines into the article. Unless I'm missing something, the edit added nothing and would have done nothing to change the presentation of the article. The cautionary advice is appreciated, and I'm always open to correction. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not really vandalism by the way. It seems like a test edit, adding 4 spaces to an article. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if the tone of my comments was condescending; I really didn't mean them that way. Anyway I am not the best to watch the article – an expert is needed for that purpose. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't offended, and my apologies if it sounded like I was being defensive. You make a good point about the article, and if I'm not willing to be questioned on my edits, I should keep my nose out of recent changes patrolling and stick to articles that I know well myself. On the topic of suicide itself, I'm not an expert by any means, but one doesn't need to be to judge most diffs that come up. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Be Careful with Rollback

Hello again. I see you've been reverting for a while with rollback and I've noticed your comments on your talk page. Please be very careful with rollback and that it is used for vandalism and vandalism only. It is not used for good faith edits. If misused many times, it will be revoked. Please remember this. Thanks. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep--I'm running about 95-98+% correct anti-vandalism, which I'm striving to improve. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Good, but try to be 100% accurate. I don't think you would want it taken away. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm a bit too modest. I'm running at over 99% accuracy. 100% is the obvious goal, of course, but I shouldn't sell myself short, either. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well, just remember that. Are you part of any WikiProjects? -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes... check my userboxes. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal blocking

Ha, it's 10 past 1 in the afternoon here so it's not an odd hour for me. No problem blocking though. James086Talk | Email 05:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your location from your user page, hence the comment about my hour. It's only 22:15 on the U.S. West Coast, but it's nice to go to bed knowing that the fellow who'd been dorking around with my user page won't be doing anything else to it while I sleep. Thanks and goodnight. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Bleh. It's 1:23am here. Just checking my watchlist before bed. If I fire up Huggle, I'll never get to sleep. So I won't. Zzzzzz. :) DarkAudit (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning to me

I was reverting that IP vandal. I think you mistook his edits for mine.--Master of Tetris and Emlith (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct--we were reverting him at the same time, and Huggle notified you inappropriately. I hate friendly fire in rvv'ing! Jclemens (talk)

Stephen Colbert

I noticed that your reverted my edit of Stephen Colbert (character)'s article. The quote I added was not only relevant to the sentence, but was a direct quote from Colbert in character from his appearance on the O'Reilly Factor. The previous entry is not entirly true as he doesn't say outright that his name is French to "get liberals to watch his show." What he ACTUALLY SAYS is "to get the cultural elites on my side." My revision makes this part of the article more correct and this is the second time its been reverted. I've also provided a link to back uo my quote. Please let me know why you reverted this so maybe we can avoid this problem in the future. STiLL DRE (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)STiLL DRE

STiLL DRE, thanks for your polite and positive approach to the matter. I am not a domain expert on most of the changes I review, so I have to look for other clues. In this case, it appears that four separate factors contributed to my decision to revert your changes.
  • First, you're using a new account. That's not bad in and of itself, but I only patrol changes made by anonymous users. When you're no longer a new account (the exact date and edit thresholds escape me at the moment), I won't even see changes you make.
  • Second, you'd been reverted on that article by another editor. Other editors can make mistakes, too, but that raises my index of suspicion: since I know nothing about the article, the other editor likely knows more, and cannot know less, than I do. Often, vandals will immediately readd any vandalism that has been undone, and I had no basis to distinguish your editing from that.
  • Third, your edit lacked an edit summary. Edit summaries are a great chance to explain what you're doing to people who may be looking at your change, but not have all the knowledge of the subject you do. Vandals rarely take the time to provide articulate edit summaries.
  • Fourth, you replaced a reference with a lower-quality reference. Links to YouTube are deprecated, compared to links to major news outlets. If you had added a YT reference instead of replacing the Fox News reference, I almost certainly would not have reverted your edit.
So, those four factors led me to believe your edit was substantially more likely to be unhelpful than helpful. If you readd it with an edit summary and without removing the existing reference to Fox News, your likelihood of being reverted by another editor should be minimal. Again, thanks for your contribution and sorry that I mistook it for likely vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

....Okay thanks. As I stated, my account is new so I'm not used to using the edit summary option and linking sources. The first edit I made didn't site a source, so thats why the first revision was made. Also, I was unaware that YouTube was a low-quality reference but it makes sense now that you mention it. I'm happy to learn from mistakes and I will certainly put your advice to use in further edits and revisions that I make. STiLL DRE (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)STiLL DRE

With that attitute, STiLL DRE, you will be a great asset to Wikipedia. I'm still learning things myself, but feel free to ask here for any help. Cheers! Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell

The page itself was in coded format and such, I reverted it to the previous version to correct the error. The photo of him had a top caption that read "his father is Tom Hill." I have no idea where that came from, and I changed it to "Colin Powell." Sbfenian1916 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism tools are pretty much "all or nothing"--I noticed the 'successor' field was vandalized in the resultant page, and reverted it. Please feel free to ignore the automated warning and re-correct any parts of the article that I made wrong again. I think vandals love to team up where any auto-revert reintroduces error. Thanks for your efforts to keep Wikipedia vandalism free! Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions?

I see your doing good. Any questions? --RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. If I run into anything I need your help with, I'll ask. I will need help with the process of developing GA's and FA's, but I don't see that you've got any background in that area. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Regards, RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 17:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Saifgill

Hi, I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your warning from User talk:Saifgill - the text in question was a copyvio, so blanking the page isn't really problematic. It's just about not biting the newbies. Thanks -mattbuck (Talk) 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Acro-yoga

Thank you so much for reverting back to my article from the total blank out... for some reason, this article is being actively argued for deletion... if you could weigh in and support its keeping, i would appreciate greatly. Peace, --Comixboy (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, Jclemens. Asking someone to participating in a !voting page, especially asking for a speficic !vote is called WP:CANVASS which is frowned upon.--RyRy5 (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm really not one to be able to speak to the appropriateness of the article. If the article meets WP:N and WP:RS the process should result in its being kept. The best thing for you to do would be to add reliable references to notable media regarding it, rather than simply seeking other editors' support. If you need help with how to format those references, that I'd be happy to help with. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem

It's a nice little section. I'm sure there's also an interview where Anthony Head talks about s8. I'll scower Whedonesque for it.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton Southeastern

Thanks for reverting the vandalism    Juthani1   tcs 02:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm all for the "sighted revisions" proposal, though, which would hopefully put me mostly out of the business rv'ing vandalism! Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

You do realize that an IP vandalized your user page 3 times, right? I already reported the IP at WP:AIV. --RyRy5 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't. Oh, and make that 4, plus one to the editor review request and once to this talk page. Kinda funny. I'm as happy to revert vandalism here as anywhere else on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Good to hear, Jclemens. Keep up the good work. --RyRy5 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF

Why didyou revert the NYU page? They recently adopted the Banana Slug mascot and I noticed the page wasn't updated.. You can look at their press release here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.233.20 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Suuuuure. Just like the other three schools you changed without any reliable sources, huh? Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)