User talk:Jclemens/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jclemens. 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.

Would you be willing to update this article to bring it into compliance if I withdraw the AFD? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Not my job. Your job is WP:BEFORE, and my pointing out that you didn't do YOUR job doesn't obligate me to do yours. If I did it once, I would be doing nothing but fixing problems that other people point out, and so this has been my policy for quite some time as Piotrus and others can attest. I've demonstrated, preliminarily, that the topic, in its ideal state, is worthy of a Wikipedia article. There's a lack of willingness of people who nominate articles for deletion to actually fix them with supplied evidence--it's clearly not just you--but I'm not going to be an enabler here. Withdraw the AfD and it goes back to the "waiting for someone to fix it" pile, just like millions of other worthy but currently less than adequate articles. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It is fine that you aren't to person to do it. But since you aren't, then I'll leave the AFD in place so that perhaps someone else will. I'd rather WP:TNT this article that has sat on the "fix it" pile for at least 13 years than just leave it be. It's obvious that this article, which is just one line of info, other than the plot and character, is not going to be improved without the AFD. I'm not able to write a decent article on the book, that's not my forte. I have found plenty of folks willing to fix articles I've AFD'd, so will continue to use that discussion forum to either get articles fixed up or removed. Fixing or removing it improves the encyclopedia. I don't care which way it goes. If it goes, it leaves a hole that someone else might be willing to fill by creating it from scratch. Lastly, there's no need to shout YOUR. I am well aware of WP:BEFORE. I asked nicely, and you shouted in your response. There was no call for that. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You asked nicely? Fine, sure, you did that. But did you ask appropriately? Absolutely not, and you've just demonstrated your intent to misuse the AfD process, which is a conduct issue: ... will continue to use that discussion forum to either get articles fixed up or removed is a fundamental and premeditated violation of WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. If you were so bad at editing Wikipedia that you were not able to write a decent article on the book that currently is just one line of info, other than the plot and character, then that would arguably be a WP:CIR issue. But I'm sure that's not the case. You are perfectly capable, as demonstrated by your conversation here, of writing enough about the article subject to demonstrate that notability is met, so the next person coming along who doesn't understand WP:NEXIST doesn't feel the need to nominate it for deletion. As far as all caps being shouting? I'm so old that I still do that for single words for emphasis, rather than using the Wiki-markup for bolding; I'm sorry that you interpreted that as shouting. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 4, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the discussion of Lewis(baseball) at WP:Deletion review/Log/2023 July 16. I wanted to query your closing statement "No consensus to overturn merge outcome." While literally true, it seems to understate, in my view, the clear consensus to Endorse User:Ritchie333's close as a correct reading of the AfD. While some of the comments at the DRV expressed reservations about the result of the AfD, I don't see any that expressed disagreement with the close itself. And, in particular, no one prefaced a comment with Overturn or Relist. From a content perspective, I know that it doesn't really make any difference, but from an Admin discretion perspective I know that I would have rather seen one of my closes Endorsed rather than sustained with No Consensus to overturn. Thanks for your time and for your contributions to deletion discussions in general. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right: that was an intentional understated response. The numbers speak for themselves, there's no need to rub in that not one single person supported the appellant. It was not my intent to undermine the original close, but just be decent to the poor chap who got roundly rejected in what appears to be a good-faith appeal. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I felt it was better to state here directly than to hash it out on the AfD itself, but while I understand you are a hard inclusionist, please assume some good faith. This is the third time I've asked you for that, and yet you continue trying to come across as rude. If you feel I'm doing something off, take it to RfC, not through insults on the AfD page. Additionally I openly stated in the AfD I want to be proven wrong on the matter and not merge the article, so please don't assume how I "want the discussion to go".-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man Please don't open a discussion with an insult--even if you don't necessarily see it as such. I am not now, nor have I ever been a hard inclusionist. I self-describe as a curationist, and have done so for well over a decade. I trust an appropriate apology to be forthcoming, and will address the subsequent point contingent on that assumption of good faith.

As far as insults, curiously persistent, and non-policy-based, complaints about certain sourcing. may be uncomfortable, but it is based on behavior, not assumption of motives. If you take objection to And, of course, once you've been shown to be playing fast and loose interpreting guidelines in such a weirdly inaccurate interpretation favorable to your desired outcome... no amount of badgering helps. as assuming your desired outcome... your objection is nonsensical and I question how it can be made in good faith since 1) You nominated the article for deletion discussion, and in doing so did not mention any WP:ATD such as redirection or merging. 2) You have four separate comments replying to keep !voters disagreeing with their positions on sourcing. Any reasonable person would see that as advocating for deletion. If you're objecting to the term badgering, I grant that your behavior is not unequivocally covered under WP:BADGER, but is consistent with Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not. Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Considering that the last time this came up you made an accusation of user conduct borne out of a lack of due diligence on your part to make sure you knew what you were talking about, I think making bad-faith commentary on the motives of users you disagree with is a significantly worse user conduct issue, an actively detrimental to the AfD process. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Cukie Gherkin restoring to address: You made an unprompted user conduct accusation against me. Deleting your immediately prior does not, in and of itself, resolve the issue. Please clarify your intent in writing by choosing one of two options and commenting further as you see fit:

1) You agree that your prior comments were not only inappropriate but untrue and never worthy of pursuing in any forum, now or in the future. Your acceptance will be understood as an apology for these inappropriate comments, and I will drop the matter.

2) You stand by your comments, but you do not have an interest in pursuing them at this time. In this case, your non-apology must be fleshed out with specifics or it will be understood to be a personal attack under WP:WIAPA bullet point six: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. (policy links not preserved in quote)

Either is welcome and will be addressed appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not an apology, I just find that the way you behave in AfDs to be unacceptable, referring to both Snorlax's and Alisa Bosconovitch's. In both cases, you made comments about the nominating editor, and in Alisa's case, the accusation was even more absurd, There, you accused Kung Fu Man of a user conduct issue and, when pressed, you failed to actually elaborate on any policy that Kung Fu Man violated. and even made clear that your accusation of user conduct was made without you verifying whether there was any merit to your accusation. The very notion that a person should not be able to remove abjectly bad content from an article is a bad thing is completely unsupported by any policy, and yet you levied that accusation. So, to me, my user conduct accusation is you making, by your definition, personal attacks against other users. What policy was violated by Kung Fu Man re: Alisa Bosconovitch to justify accusations of bad user conduct? I would be delighted for you to elaborate. :) - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No links, no diffs, no specifics: understand that you are in violation of WP:NPA, and please try to follow policy when you're complaining about someone's behavior. Do better.

Nominating editors have obligations to conduct themselves in a forthright and transparent manner; as I mentioned in the AfD you cited (but didn't link to) disclosing that the editor in question had deleted multiple sources from the nominated article as inadequate months prior to the AfD nomination would have been perfectly forthright and transparent. Failing to do so is more characteristic of tendentious editing, something that any editor should call out as improper, and which no good-faith editor should defend.

You may also not like that I prefer a Fruit of the poisonous tree approach to AfD nominator conduct. That is certainly a legitimate topic on which good editors can disagree, but rather than asking for blocks or other such punitive and ineffective sanctions against nominators not adhering to appropriate standards, I prefer the nomination be dismissed with prejudice as a way to discourage such nominator behavior: to those who look at deleting articles as a 'win' this imposes a 'loss' that is no more than retaining the status quo. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and I vehemently disagree that someone needs to meticulously document edits they made months prior to remove bad content. What is significantly worse to me is that you do not need to do even the bare minimum to verify whether what they removed was of even subjective value - and to this day, you cannot identify a single source that Kung Fu Man removed which shouldn't have been removed. Your comment was also incredibly misleading, implying that the user intentionally nominated it in a reduced state in order to present a weaker version of the article. This is an accusation that holds no water whatsoever, as checking the facts behind the matter will show that the AfD was nominated months after the edits were made, even if KFM merged the article shortly after cleanup. A valuable rule to follow on Wikipedia is to apply common sense. Is removing copyrighted material prior to an AfD bad? Is removing vandalism prior to an AfD bad? Obviously not, and no one would expect someone to clarify that they did.

Secondly, let me look at WP:TE to see how it applies.

And many others

In fact, looking into this, the edits KFM made were explicitly the removal of content that violated this essay: "Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit" The removals on KFM's part, months before the AfD, were of content that was in blatant violation of this. Point 10, meanwhile, could apply if you didn't verify that you didn't examine what KFM actually removed; however, seeing as you did, it seems like attempting to cite something you pulled out of nowhere to address the fact that your aspersions were without proper basis.

Ironically, the only relevant point in this essay is the part you violate: "Accusing others of tendentious editing". It's an inflammatory accusation, especially knowing that you failed to do due diligence to check what KFM removed was of even subjective value. This essay tells you to, instead of making accusations of behavior against an editor you believe is editing tendentiously, to cite the policy or guideline they are violating. To me, it begs the question: what policy or guideline was violated? If it is wiser to point them out, why didn't you point them out? Because as it is, it seems you run afoul of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and are scraping together the weakest justification for why you made the aspersion against KFM. And KFM and I are not the only ones who think that way - multiple other users in the AfD identified your behavior as not being acceptable, to which you lashed out at them. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I leave this alone to give you a chance to fix it, but again: no links, no diffs, no specifics, and thus yet another WP:NPA violation. Let's stop giving you rope, and instead cut to the chase, shall we: How did I irritate you in one or more of your prior or other accounts? Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Goodness. [1] " this series of edits by the nominator invalidates the entire premise of the AfD: decimating an article and then nominating it for deletion is a user conduct issue and should be addressed as such before considering any such discussion valid." This is a violation of WP:NPA by your standards. And it is a violation of WP:TE, because you disregard the rule made specifically for someone like you, to not behave in an inflammatory way when responding to tendentious editing. If you can identify what I said to you as a personal attack, but not what you said to KFM as a personal attack, I don't know what to tell you. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be under the impression that this conversation is about me. It's not. It's about your WP:NPA violations, and I again repeat the current question: How did I irritate you in one or more of your prior or other accounts? Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a discussion with someone accused by multiple people of casting WP:ASPERSIONS and violating WP:NPA who, at the same time, complains if someone merely makes the exact same comment towards them as they do to others. Consider why everyone thinks you're the one in the wrong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You are not discussing anything with me; you have violated NPA multiple times in the opportunity I gave you to repudiate the initial personal attack you posted on this page and then retracted, and are attempting to deflect the conversation away from your problematic behavior rather than apologize for it. Again, for a third time: How did I irritate you in one or more of your prior or other accounts? Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I came by to see if you responded to what I said, and reading through this I think you need to understand you're the one making personal attacks and accusations, even in this. "Let's stop giving you rope"? You really can't see how that comes across? Dude you're not an admin, you have just as much authority as anyone else here, so please give it a rest. The interactions I've had with you here and here are venomous, consisting of personal swipes, veiled accusations and all around just mean spirited behavior in what should be a more professional atmosphere so we can properly ascertain the validity of articles even beyond the AfD in question. And I reckon I'm not the only one you've behaved that way towards, especially when the coup de grace in all this is when I look at your talk page history, Cukie was willing to not engage you after reconsidering and you not only purposefully restored their comment but came at them swinging around policy.

YOU sought this fight out. And I'd really rather it end so we can behave professionally towards each other here on out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Kung Fu Man... I'm sorry, were you meaning to open with the apology that I AGF'ed you intended, when you took the initiative to address me on my talk page and opened with what I reasonably perceived to be an insult? Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sir, I've said my fill on this matter and stand by it. Good day to you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've chosen not to continue in hope of finding common ground, but I respect your effort at a graceful exit. Feel free to reopen the discussion later should you choose to. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edit

Here are some background info from me as as the original merger (as a non B5 viewer): Technomage_(Babylon_5) got merged as part of a larger B5 cleanup process in 2019 into Civilizations in Babylon 5, which in turn was merged into List of Babylon 5 characters in 2020. As there aren't any mentionworthy Technomages in Babylon 5, any info on that race got lost inadvertantly. I see now that Galen was a main character in the 1-season spinoff show Crusade (TV series), and there is some franchise stuff going on with Technomages (video game, book trilogy).

While I (still) fully believe that this race should not have a stand-alone article on wikipedia (lack of notability, plot, the usual), I feel this topic could maybe stand a chance if it gets reformatted and expanded into a franchise/spinoff-media article. Are you knowledgable and/or willing to help out a bit here so that AfD can get avoided? – sgeureka ^t•c 11:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Sgeureka thanks for addressing this here. Yes, I have tons of B5 dead tree resources, which I last catalogued in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G'Kar. Moreso on the "Core" B5 stuff, rather than Crusade, but both existed before The Internet was a thing, and so there's a lot more to contribute to notability than can be found via Google. The problem is, I don't have time to address everything.

Because this article got merged to oblivion, I de-merged it. I don't have a problem with a re-merger, but it should be done in a manner that doesn't eliminate all the information--that's my beef with the end result of previous mergers. Babylon 5 (franchise)#The Technomage Trilogy, Crusade (TV series), and The Geometry of Shadows (which you redirected, but again... I have enough to demonstrate notability for every B5 episode but not the time to implement it) are all good spots for some of this to go. It would still be reasonable to have this article, more or less as it stands now, at some point in the future. Based on our attribution rules, I don't see any reason why this can't be merged to multiple different articles, even if it only can redirect to one. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Gary Gygax has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! I had reverted your edits re: "Arrested by You" because: (1) it was unsourced information and I am currently in the process of cleaning up that page. In fact, you can see I had flagged that section as needing more sources, as it's largely WP:OR at this point, so I think we should focus on finding refs and not adding new unsourced info; (2) as far as I can see, that cover does not meet notability requirements for cover songs anyway, as outlined in WP:NSONG. A song that limped to #70 in the UK and nowhere else would not seem to necessitate a mention, but I'm open to hearing arguments to the contrary. However, I do thank you for bringing the cover to my attention, because I had no knowledge of it existing before and I enjoyed hearing it. Anyway, I hope we can resolve this amicably. Cheers.—The Keymaster (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, if I'm not mistaken, using another article on WP as a source of sorts is considered WP:CIRCULAR. In fact I tried that myself many years ago, when I was a fledgling editor, and got piled on for it.— The Keymaster (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

So, the fact that a song is on an album is exactly the sort of evidence that doesn't generally need anything more than primary sourcing. Do we need someone commenting about it? No, because it's not an opinion, it's not controversial... it's just a fact, unless there's some sort of dispute. Facts don't need notability, per WP:NNC, which leads to the second issue.

As far as whether to include it or not... why not? You've posted a great argument why "Arrested by You" doesn't get its own article. We're agreed on that. What I haven't seen is any reason not to mention the fact in arguably the most relevant article. I went ahead and added it to Reputation (Dusty Springfield album) as well, but there's no particular reason not to have two-way pointers between the first recording and the one that charted. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

So, basically, mentioning its existence in an article would fall under the same parameters as something like, say, WP:TRACKLISTING, which doesn't require a secondary source or explicit citation?

As for its notability, my initial feeling was that it might fall under something like WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but maybe not. The same kind of thing that has discouraged the inclusion of those ubiquitous "In popular culture" or "Cover songs" sections for albums/songs in recent years. Do I have that wrong? If so, maybe I reacted too hastily.

Thanks.— The Keymaster (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't normally do a lot of music-specific work, only incidentally as it intersects with other topics (Sci-Fi media, mostly) that I do work in regularly, so I wouldn't be able to give a solid opinion on how it's done elsewhere. Again--elements of articles don't need to be notable, but that's such a common misunderstanding of how notability works. They just have to be otherwise appropriate and not UNDUE. Want to see if any talk page stalkers chime in on this one, or if no one does, seek a WP:3O? Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I could also pitch this to WT:ALBUMS and see what they think, but it can sometimes be difficult to get discussion going over there.— The Keymaster (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be fine. I'm not married to my desired outcome, and am open to input from others as to how such things are most commonly handled. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. CatmanBw (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Malawi has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dan the Animator 07:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Letting you know that the edit notice is now live - if you edit any article with refideas listed on the talk page, you will get the notification. :) You can click "edit" on Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game) to see it in action, if you have not already seen it. :) BOZ (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jclemens :) I'm looking to interview people here, feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! George Griffith is at WP:FAC, see WP:Featured article candidates/George Griffith/archive1, and I figured this might be of interest to you based on your participation at WP:Articles for deletion/George Griffith. If you are interested in weighing in on the FAC, your input would be appreciated. TompaDompa (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I don't have the bandwidth to meaningfully contribute to an FA process at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jclemens, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jclemens! I just created the article "American Academy of Physician Associates." When preparing to create a redirect for "American Academy of Physician Associates", I saw that the article you had created for "American Academy of Physician Associates" been moved to the draft space User:Jclemens/American Academy of Physician Associates. I did not notice this until after I had created the article. I just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to work on it. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have ideas on how to proceed, but I haven't had time. I was collaborating with Rod Hooker on this, but got swamped with doctoral studies and never really made progress. Feel free to use anything in the draft article or pick my brain on any part of it, but still don't have a lot of time, as I've been growing my own practice for the past couple of years. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and the work on that article isn't just mine--it was deleted previously, so was parked in my user space for an overhaul... which again, never really got done. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jclemens,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Just for posterity's stake or any talk page watchers, I have no evidence, just noted in the case request that the interplay of private evidence/outing and COI guidelines needs committee guidance as there are people who read the policies' interaction in very different ways. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey — I see that the duo of Piotrus and TompaDompa are getting under your skin. I agree that TompaDompa is super confident for a guy that is absolutely wrong about what he's talking about. But I hope that we can take a step back and just let the AfD close as Keep, which it will. TompaDompa will go and be wrong somewhere else, and life will go on. I wish you all the best. Toughpigs (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the concern. Hmm, I don't think they're getting under my skin any more than the "it must be fixed RIGHT NOW or deleted" crowd usually does. But I've been dealing with such arguments for at least 15 years, and I genuinely don't care what people think about me, so I suppose I might be coming across as too brusque.

I actually like to hash things out in individual AfDs, because you end up with a few people max, and when you get 20+ people discussing stuff on a policy page, it gets too muddled to follow coherently. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Thanks again. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You are two of my favorite Wikipedians, just got to say. :) BOZ (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visoki Dečani, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Remember the 4 tildes, or the Wikipedia monster will come out from under your bed and eat all your barnstars. Personhumanperson (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to assume I know you under a different name. Either that, or you really don't know WP:DTTR or how to use {{unsigned}}. Whichever, wow, what an overly dramatic way to point out I forgot to sign a post. You're going far! Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Sir what can we do so that we get a fair chance to create an article of Priyanka Choudhary in Wikipedia? We tried all possible mean by maintaining WP:CIVILity and WP:good faith. We do not want to repeat the mistakes which her earlier fans made but we do wish for a fair chance. 117.209.242.154 (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you help me with your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuuki (Sword Art Online Character) The dogcat (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you need help with? Writing a good Wikipedia article about Yuuki? I'm not the best person to help; what availability I do have I usually funnel into processes like AfD and DRV just because there is so much to learn to participate well there. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jclemens, Thanks but can you check the opinions? The dogcat (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't recreate this redirect without consensus. If you feel the AfD decision to not leave a redirect was incorrect, or that the closer's summary was inaccurate, please take this up via Wikipedia:Deletion review. — The Anome (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that @Ingenuity: has changed their mind (see discussion on their talk page). Given this, I've undeleted the page and restored it to your version with the redirect. I will also unprotect it. — The Anome (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, The Anome, and thanks for the notifications. I'm just up and won't have time to respond in detail until later, but do you understand that your deletion of the redirect was an IAR move not authorized by speedy deletion policy? If not, I can go through things with you on both why 1) deleting the redirect wasn't an appropriate action in the first place, and 2) keeping a redirect there is actually the more encyclopedic outcome. No rush to get back to me on this--I believe this is far more important than it is urgent. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like the correct action at the time as the result of the AfD until I realised it wasn't, but think we've quickly reached a result that satisfied everyone and is completely policy-compliant. I'm happy to apologise for my temporary deletion of the redirect, if that will help. — The Anome (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but just for future reference, I have the time to go through my reasoning. I've been around working in ATDs for more time than most editors, so here's what prompted me to do what I did:

1) AfD says no article, and BLP concerns are an issue. Fair enough, good starting point.

2) AfD also agrees that the title is terrible--keepers or deleters, even the original author decided it was a bad idea.

2a) ...but it's not G10 bad. It's tacky and certainly offensive, and while many people agree with that, no one seriously argued that the title, as a title, was inherently offensive, but rather the content at that problematic title was. As I noted {{R from non-neutral name}} is for handling just such situations.

3) So what about the AfD consensus? There's two ways to read "no redirect"

3a) No redirect, meaning the content is deleted rather than the closing admin just retargeting the page to turn it into a redirect. This has the effect of hiding all the content that is asserted to be BLP violations (which I personally doubt, but never went through the article looking for issues), or

3b) No redirect ever, delete it and salt it. As you'll note the closing admin did not create-protect the title.

Which brings us to the question: should no redirect ever exist at that point? In general, the point of redirects to a more neutral name is to assume that good faith readers hitting a bad link should be redirected to the right place, and bad faith readers should be exposed to the proper way Wikipedia chooses to cover the controversial topic. Either way, redirects are cheap and one should exist somewhere unless the title is per se G10 level abuse or the link was so new that no one would accidentally land on it. Or, perhaps, if the title was too new and not worth redirecting. With 61 page watchers and 77+k pageviews, even though attenuating over time, it's reasonable to assume that someone, somewhere, might land on whatever showed up at that previous name, even if redirected from a non-Wikipedia source. I don't know that we have any hard and fast rules on this one, so call it a judgment call.

My choice to recreate was based on the assumption that 3a was the desired outcome, and 3b was an overly strict reading of the closing admin's statement: there was absolutely support for retaining neither title nor content, but also a belief that the proper content should be given DUE weight in Catherine's real bio article. Again, this was informed by a lack of general clamor to G10 the entire thing (and CSD's aren't applied, in general, when good editors differ over the applicability) and the closing admin's not salting the title. Oh, on a technical policy level, CSD-G4 doesn't apply to redirects created after an AfD, because a redirect is not substantially identical to the deleted article. If it had been deleted at RfD, future creations would be G4 eligible, but that's not what happened, and I was thus aware that this might spawn a future discussion, but did not believe it to be speedy deletable as such.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk on redirects after controversial deletions. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Where is Kate? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 14 § Where is Kate? until a consensus is reached. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I disagree, as you might suspect. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Jclemens,

I hold you in very high respect. When we come together, I make an effort to express a different perspective to avoid being labelled as being your acolyte.

Recently at DRV, I now have lost track, I wrote something about interviews being primary, but then mentioned fact checking, but fact checking doesn’t happen during an interview and so it separate that. Do you remember?

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for coming here to ask. When this "interviews are primary" thing was hashed out, I wasn't active in policy discussions, I believe, so that happened without my input, and I think that summary doesn't do it justice.

An interview in a major publication will fact check the interviewees statements and often seek concurring or dissenting witnesses. Think NYT, WSJ, etc. where the interviews are long form pieces that broadly intersperse supporting data into the "interview."

Contrast that with a fansite verbatim interview with a celebrity. Pretty much verbatim, back and forth, no fact checking and no real critique.

The former is a very different critter than the latter. We're treating "an interview" as if the latter was the only case of an interview. In fact, the nuanced spectrum between the two needs a lot more thought applied. While it might be obvious that anyone profiled in a major publication's long form interview has enough coverage elsewhere so that notability isn't an issue... there's more to it than that. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey Jclemens, I was part of the deletion discussion of Aiden Pearce, until I got absolutely obliterated by User:Boneless Pizza. I saw your comment on the idea of the Characters of the Watch Dogs franchise, which to me, seems like a great idea! I found a few sources ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) and I'm pretty sure there'll be way more if you dig deeper. Do you want to co-create the article with me? Please let me know MK at your service. 07:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer. I have limited time to dedicate to content creation on Wikipedia, however, and if I DID have time to tackle fiction/entertainment topics, it would be dedicated to books I've read, shows I've watched, or games I've played. I've never played the Watch Dogs series, nor do I have time to, and so I wouldn't know the first thing about the content on which we would be working. My sincerest apologies, but I must decline. Perhaps a talk page stalker might emerge to volunteer? One can hope. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I understand your style of Wikipedia content creation. I mainly rely on video game journalism, secondary websites, or my experience from the games themselves. I have a few more people I could try, or I could just put up topic in the article for the franchise's talk page and see if anyone would want to lend a hand. I will take your idea into consideration too, but comparably to others, I'm new to Wikipedia, so my talk page isn't really active unless bots are considered talk page stalkers. Thank you for your kind words of respectfully declining. Maybe we'd run into each other later on Wikipedia. Sincerely, MK at your service. 07:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Compounding one bad decision by making yet another one (this time, explicitly against the guidance for closure at WP:DRV#Closing_reviews) is just ignoring consensus, plain and simple. DRV is clear that an admin should close it only after the seven day discussion period. There are limited options for closing earlier, but the fact that the nominating editor happened to be blocked as a sock is not one of them (and does not undermine the support they've received since the discussion started). As to your closure notes: Socks do not have standing to start DRVs. ^{[citation needed]} As mentioned, WP:DRV makes no mention of socks nor their ability to start a discussion. Having said that, the consensus is very clear ... You closed the discussion in less time than the AFD had, and far short of the SEVEN days DRV demands. These continued out of process closures are damaging the project and the respect it has. This is why you were reverted. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What part of "socks don't have standing" do you not understand? If you want to start a new DRV on the same topic, you're welcome to do that, but one non-admin doesn't revert another's non-admin close. It's not like I'm just making the guidance up; go read WP:SOCKSTRIKE and see how it's been applied at DRV before. Again, happy for any admin to revert me... but I doubt any of the admins who frequent DRV will, which is why I made the closure in the first place. From a pragmatic stance, our eyes need to be on the article, because whatever happens, the content there will be kept standalone OR merged, as I noted, and so arguing over its immediate fate in the <24 hour aftermath of the event is unnecessary and probably counterproductive. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Further Lock Cole, you reopened a discussion in which you've already expressed an opinion. That's never a good idea. You'll note that I've gnomed one redirect in the topic area, but not expressed any opinions on the topic... because I don't have any--at least not on how Wikipedia covers the deceased assassin. I mean, yes, terrible event, but I wrote the original version of WP:WI1E back in 2009, so I have 15 years of looking at how Wikipedia can best cover such things. When all is said and done, he will either have a separate article, like Hinckley as cited in BLP1E, or Squeaky Fromme, Sirhan Sirhan, Arthur Bremer, John Schrank, or Lee Harvey Oswald. WP:OSE isn't a Wikipedia thing, of course, but can you name anyone who's put a bullet in a United States presidential candidate who doesn't have a Wikipedia article? Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, per Category:Failed assassins of presidents of the United States, the guy who tried to grab a gun at a 2016 Trump event but got nowhere is the only redirect listed, so it's not a 100% populated category... but pretty close. Wikipedia does do things pretty consistently, when all is said and done. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What part of "socks don't have standing" do you not understand? Every single word of it, actually. I read WP:SOCKSTRIKE, and maybe you ought to give it a read: Under Removal, This should only be done when their comments are stand alone with no replies, or when there are one or two replies that clearly do not add anything of value to the discussion, which finishes with [i]f in doubt, don't do it. It's unclear if there's another subsection of WP:SOCKSTRIKE you're referencing above, but looking over it, it appears if anything you should have followed the advice under Striking in this instance, and made a note at the top in small text for the initial discussion. It's worth mentioning that the socks that were blocked were not used in this DRV discussion, so the sockmaster never abused them to give an impression of more support. You've taken disruptive behavior that could have been mitigated and instead cranked the dial to 11.

You note in another reply that I reopened a discussion I was involved in, and stated it's "never a good idea". Is it any worse of an idea than a former admin/arbiter not following the fairly explicit instructions at WP:DRV that admins be the ones closing these discussions? And in the same way, does WP:BRD only apply to other editors? You boldly closed the discussion, you were reverted, and rather than discussing the issue, you reverted again. To quote your sage advice from earlier, [t]hat's never a good idea.

I'm not going to address your AFD-esque arguments, as those reveal a bias in your conduct and also simultaneously are irrelevant to a DRV discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to post at WT:DRV or WP:AN if you'd like an admin to review my actions. I think I've given you as thorough an answer on both the procedure and underlying policy as I can, and possibly too much so as you've stated those reveal a bias in your conduct. I don't take your assumption of bad faith personally, as you're obviously very passionate about the topic, and it is certainly one where everyone will have strong feelings. But, at the end of the day, socks don't have standing. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

But, at the end of the day, socks don't have standing. Where is this written down as policy or guideline? I went over WP:SOCKSTRIKE with you above, and you've yet to quote something beyond saying it repeatedly. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a commonly accepted practice, deriving from those generalities. So... see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 13, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 3, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1 (where the discussion was allowed to continue), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 3, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 15, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 24... So we're seeing this sort of thing a bit less than once per month. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in mid-conversation, but the difference between the above DRVs and Crooks' DRV is that Crooks' received several good faith votes to overturn/relist, while there were no such votes during the ones linked above. Normally, the correct course of action would have been to strike the nominating statement as a sockstrike but let the DRV run its course. However, I fully support the early close based on points 2 and 3 (and would have voted endorse myself but I was not on-wiki yesterday). Frank Anchor 12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a valid concern, but the other half of the coin is WP:DFTT. By continuing to allow a disruptive nomination that had little to no chance of succeeding--following a less DENY-centered response--allows the troll to 'win' by watching Wikipedia editors waste time battling each other over something that doesn't matter. I've been doing this, off and on, for about 18 years now, and the similarities to other U.S. election years is evident: Once something hits the media frenzy "It's not notable yet!" is a naive cry. Does anyone, Lock Cole included, think Crooks' article does not demonstrate notability? We're just a bit over 2 days past the event; a seven-day process is pointless because even if there are good faith editors who don't think standalone notability exists yet, anyone who thinks that Crooks' article is not going to continue to draw RS attention over the next four days doesn't understand the interaction between major current events and Wikipedia articles. This is not me expressing an opinion on the content or the topic, merely the flow between major political news stories and Wikipedia articles: trying to delete an article on a breaking political topic in the middle of the corresponding media frenzy is a Quixotic effort, which is why trolls love to spark or support such efforts. Make sense? Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole - I was one of the good-standing editors who called for Overturn and Relist - I took part in the DRV thinking that it was brought by another editor in good standing. I accept that I am in a minority who favored an overturn. The originator of the DRV is not even in the minority, because blocked means blocked. I don't plan to start another DRV or AN. Sockpuppets are block-evaders, and block-evading must not be encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As @Frank Anchor noted, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE, the correct action would have been to strike the spurious comments (few that there were) so as not to disrupt the project further by completely derailing the conversation which had strong arguments for both actions. From the very beginning of WP:SOCKSTRIKE: When deciding how to clean up after a sock, ask yourself: "What is the cleanest and least disruptive way of dealing with each edit?", and use that as your guide. I posit that undermining the time invested by over a dozen editors by closing the discussion early (and incorrectly, against the guidance at WP:DRV) was more disruptive than simply using judicious striking/hatting to allow the in-progress discussion to reach it's conclusion and not robbing involved editors of their time investment. The examples cited by Jclemens, in addition to being a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, aren't even the same situations, with the sock discussions being closed long before any significant discussion could get underway. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And as I also noted, the close was correct based on points 2 and 3. Just disagree with using the sock nominator as justification for the close. Frank Anchor 00:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to points 2 and 3 of the "Speedy Closes" at WP:DRV or something I'm missing? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to points 2 and 3 of Jclemens' closing statement, specifically 2) Having said that, the consensus is very clear with the trend of endorse > relist > overturn that this DRV is not going to overturn the SNOW close in the short term, and so there is no benefit to leaving this illegitimate appeal run its course. Note that this is not a snow close, see #1, just answering a possible reason to let this run despite #1. 3) When all the dust settles, cooler heads will determine whether this should be a standalone article or merged into Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per WP:BLP1E. Frank Anchor 14:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, those points... for #2, the whole reason for the DRV was the close that was done at AFD in just hours, leaving many editors unable to comment or provide counter arguments. Closing the DRV early (in a shorter time frame than even the AFD) is just pouring gas on the fire, not actually dealing with the initial issue presented (and again, the instructions at DRV are crystal clear here: they are to run for seven days and be closed by an administrator, only a handful of exceptions for DRV "Speedy Closes" exist, and this wasn't one of them). #3 is just kicking the can down the road and making it someone else's problem at best, and at worst, it's a WP:FAITACCOMPLI situation. And yes, even days later, I am still of the opinion the DRV should be reopened and allowed to finish. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't strictly a WP:1AM situation, but consider this: it's been nearly three days since the incident, nearly two days since the closure, and no administrator has felt the need to undo my closure. Nothing is stopping you from soliciting an admin to do so. Nothing is stopping you from starting a real DRV and referencing the closed one, since it was explicitly not closed on its merits, even though I believe the trajectory of RS coverage since the AfD/DRV closures has demonstrated that the community did get it right with the original AfD close. Kicking the can down the road is a very apt metaphor and exactly what we should be doing, such that in a month or two the community can come back and decide whether to keep or merge the shooter's content. When that happens, I likely won't participate. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Jclemens - Can the close of Speedy Keep at least be changed to snowball early close of Keep? The closer didn't know the difference, but the guidelines set forth the difference clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon ugh, sticky situation there. I don't disagree with your point, but the entire point of my NAC was that the sock-started DRV shouldn't have been opened in the first place. I get that you get this, but I want to make the rationale clear for anyone else coming along and reading this later. I think there's merit to your request as housekeeping--has the original closer declined to update their rationale? Because I think the original closer making the technical change is the best way forward without ME overstepping. Failing that, let's get another DRV admin (Star Mississippi comes to mind as someone with a low tolerance for socking at DRV) to make that switch, or I think we will just have to restart a DRV or reopen the one I closed for just that purpose. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. The status of the DRV changed for the worse while it was in progress, when the originator was found to be a block-evading sockpuppet, so it became clear that the DRV never should have been opened. I agree with that, and that can reasonably be interpreted as meaning that the rest of the DRV was noise. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've asked on Ganesha811's talk page about the potential for a wording update, and pointed to this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that was an error on my part. I'm going to strike the "speedy" part of the close and make a note there. Thank you both for bringing it to my attention. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that concern. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I do genuinely appreciate you taking the time to explain the nuances of WP:CROSSCAT at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring space stations. I am still not happy with the list in question and feel that its inclusion criteria is too overly broad to really work, but it clearly does not warrant deletion under the reasoning I nominated it for, so I plan on Withdrawing the AFD. Thanks! Rorshacma (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I worry that I come across as too pedantic sometimes, so it genuinely warms my heart to hear that my reasoning was received in the spirit in which I had meant it. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Civil Air Patrol has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I have been inactive for reasons that have also led me to be quite far behind on my day job. I'll likely be back to my normal participation once I have my current backlog cleared. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Stonyhurst College has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)