This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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:
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Size_of_English_Wikipedia_broken_down_freaking.png)
Requesting deleting article be reinstated.
I have only discovered now that the Page for Billy Milionis was deleted, Mr Milionis is a notable person in the Sydney community, please read the article on page 13 http://www.southsydneyherald.com.au/pdf/SSH_AUG10.pdf... ( South Sydney Herald ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.3.42 (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Restored, and sent for a deletion discussion. As of now, the article doesn't have sourcing suitable for inclusion, and since he's a living person, we want that cleaned up directly. Please make appropriate improvements to the article, and feel free to ask for help if you're unsure how to do so. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Incubator
Can you add a source link or two to this post. It's hard to assess knowing only "some editor" asked for it, no idea if this happens very often, what "kept for work" means (what work?), how long the keep was for, and any discussion or other disclosure that was considered. Thanks :) FT2 (Talk | email) 14:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for. If there's a specific issue with a specific article, is it not possible to see who put it into the incubator and ask them? Jclemens (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing
J, I think it was you (but forgive me if I'm wrong) that once said you have good database access to sources. I am looking to find this article [1], among others, for my work on this, an article I am pretty excited about. If you can help, that's great, if not, that's fine too. Thanks.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, spent a few minutes going through different things, including Lexis/Nexis academic and EBSCOHost, with no joy. No one appears to have the LA Times that far back. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
In response to The Deletion of Attaché Show Choir Page.
The Attaché Show Choir page was deleted with the concern that there is 'no sourced notability' existed for this show choir.This show choir is nationally ranked and deserves to have a wikipedia. Here are some proof of its importance in the world of show choir.
Attaché was the host for the Show Choir Nationals in Nashville, Tennessee in 2010. [1]
Here is the home page for the group: [2]
They are mentioned in the Congressional Record-Senate that states that they have won many national competitions in several states such as Indiana, Illinois, California, New York, Florida, and Alabama. It also mentions that they are the only show choir group to win Grand Championship in each of the Showstoppers International Invitation Competitions. [3]
I believe the sources I have provided, especially the last one, are enough proof of the importance of Clinton Attaché Show Choir.
Sincerely, Fireflylover (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Restored, but you didn't need to tell me all that--you need to go integrate it into the article as restored. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Please undelete Talk:Chris Molitor too
Now that the DRV is complete and overturned the AfD, can you please undelete Talk:Chris Molitor. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect PROD?
I put up a proposed deletion that said, "No significant secondary sources to show notability." You removed it, saying, "Decline PROD, rationale is incorrect: it has a source. Feel free to AfD". But the sole source does not indicate that the subject is notable. Do you think that source established notability? [2] Will Beback talk 03:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I may have been reading too much into the rationale--one source doesn't make something notable, nor was that source necessarily sufficient. What I do tend to do is de-prod PRODs with what I perceive to be inaccurate statements that clearly overstate the cause for deletion. In that case, there's a WaPo source, yet the rationale leads off with "No significant secondary sources...". I didn't actually look at who had placed the tag. Had I done so, I would have been more likely to have AGFed since it was you than if it was any random editor. If the rationale had been worded "Single source to Washington Post is trivial mention, doesn't establish notability", I almost certainly would have deleted it. Unfortunately, your terse nom got caught up in my "people possibly lying about stuff to get it deleted" filter, and declined. At this point (and even without this), I have no objection to it being AfD'ed, nor would I opine that it should be kept at an AfD. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that explanation. I'll be more careful about how I word PROD notices in the future. Will Beback talk 03:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK for List of medical eponyms with Nazi associations
-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The article you offered comment on no longer exists. Uncle G did a complete rewrite, added some quite decent sources, and moved the article to its new name... "The Nerds". Perhaps you might wish to revisit the AFD? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Since I was the last "holdout", I went ahead and closed it. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
LM-X License Manager page deleted
Hi Jclemens,
I wanted to ask if it would be possible to get the source code/content of the LM-X License Manager page I created, and which was deleted. I spent some time putting the page together, and it would be a complete waste to have to do it all over again (once I find better references/sources). I hope you understand and can help me on this. Thank you. Nowy9 (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. I've restored it and moved it to User:Nowy9/LM-X License Manager. Best wishes on improving it! Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Closing an incomplete MFD?
Could you close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hm2k/MIRCStats? This was an incomplete MFD which was part of a larger pattern of disruption just prior to this AN/I discussion which in turn led to this ArbCom motion. I considered adding the close templates myself but I think given my prior history with the editor who attempted that MFD, someone else should probably do it. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
An apology regarding the Tommy2010 RFA situation
It appears that one of the articles Tommy2010 had "written" was actually a fairly blatant copyright violation [3]; this is likely the case for his other "contributions" as well. I commend you and other editors opposing his request for adminship for having the insight to recognize the problems with the candidate, even though their exact nature wasn't fully known at the time. I apologize for excessive disputation with oppose !votes, violating WP:AGF, and neglecting to adequately investigate the user before supporting. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Apology accepted, but not really necessary. I tend to be a professional nay-sayer at RfA, so I've long since learned neither to take things personally nor to blame other people (especially nominators) when they do. We live, we learn. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Jeopardy! Kids Week
You previously participated in an AFD discussion regarding a child article of Jeopardy!. There is currently another ongoing AFD for Jeopardy! Kids Week and you may be interested in providing a comment or vote for/against deletion. If you'd like to participate you can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
POVforks
Appear to be a serious problem. I mention one at AN/I. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh? Redirect 'em. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Far beyond that state - more than 80% of an article has been "moved" to the forks. With a claim that the moves are by "agreement" which does not exist. TFD warned me not to do edits - though he and Petri excahnged plans/advice on how to get an article deleted through this means. Collect (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like it might be a violation of WP:GAME. You have diffs, I presume? Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- [4] is my edit quoting the coordination of editors. (basically saying precisely how they intended to delete Communist terrorism as an article after the RfC to change the title was clearly rejected.
- [5] shows TFD's creation of the Left wing terrorism article.
- [6] shows Siebert's massive deletion from the parent article. [7] shows Igny reverting my edit.
- [8] shows Igny moving a large section (without preserving edit history). [9] shows Siebert moving almost all the rest with the claim "per talk." [10] I reverted the move to the POVfork. [11] then redeleted the content calling it delete POV fork content per talk (making the apparent assertion that the original article is the "fork"! [12] Snowded then assert that the deletion was revert to talk page agreement) which does not exist.
- [13] TFD asserts that the article Communist terrorism falls under Digwuren and warns me that I will be sanctioned for edit war if I dispute the POVfork. Sigh. The fact is that Petri and TFD knew they were creating a POVfork, established the means for deleting the original article, and are carrying it out contrary, IMHO, to WP policies. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like it might be a violation of WP:GAME. You have diffs, I presume? Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Far beyond that state - more than 80% of an article has been "moved" to the forks. With a claim that the moves are by "agreement" which does not exist. TFD warned me not to do edits - though he and Petri excahnged plans/advice on how to get an article deleted through this means. Collect (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Polemic
Is it not also polemic not to MFD the other one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demiurge1000/Second_enquiry_into_the_Rlevse_affair - Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? I haven't looked at that one yet. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I've now looked at it. If anything it should be tagged as humor. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- ^ http://www.showchoirnationals.com/choir.php?choir=clinton
- ^ http://attache.clinton.chs.schoolfusion.us/modules/groups/integrated_home.phtml?gid=954487&sessionid=2ec17d14c093eadc0e0306fd28e96917
- ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=8hGwXHr0eNEC&pg=PA8122&lpg=PA8122&dq=grand+championships+show+choir+attache&source=bl&ots=-uaP4zE-03&sig=CkV9nNZ4Y1kGLxfi0eFNVcyIU5o&hl=en&ei=ywDTTN2WC4Odlgf3lbHRDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=attache&f=false