User talk:Jclemens

Welcome, correspondents I periodically do recent changes patrolling. If I reverted your edits, there's a large likelihood I did so for one or more of the following reasons:

1. No edit summary, especially for a removal. I can't read your mind. If you removed content that was a copyvio or an ad, you can either tell everyone by including an accurate edit summary, or not. If you don't, you stand a higher chance of getting reverted, because I have yet to meet any other recent changes patroller who can read minds, either.
2. No sourcing, especially for a controversial change. I don't normally revert non-outlandish changes unless I have personal knowledge that the original was more reasonable, but if you are going to make a change to a biography, the burden is on you to source it, especially if you want to assert that the existing article was radically incorrect with regard to any protected class.

If you include a good source and a good edit summary, odds of me reverting you are quite small indeed. If you still have questions about why I made a particular reversion, don't hesitate to start a new topic at the bottom of the page and ask why: I am always willing to explain my reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

Hi. Could you point out any more problems with the prose please? I've been through it. The problem is - I wrote most of it so its about the best prose I can do by myself without someone saying what is wrong with it. Fainites ^barley 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm in and out all day, I'll get to a substantive review in the evening. If you don't mind me fixing things as I go--which I believe is allowed by the GA rules--I'll just help out. Sound good? Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fantastic to me. The trouble is - you read over something so many times you can't see the wood for the trees! Fainites ^barley 22:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I got through the first two major sections. If you don't understand any of the tags, ask. I'll try to get to the rest of it later. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done those tags. I've pretty much rewritten the historical roots section. Hopefully its clearer now.Fainites ^barley 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How about some feedback on the tagging? Did it make sense? Do you think I was too harsh? I'll try to get to the rest of it later this afternoon--off to play chess with my 7 year old. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The tags were all legit and I addressed the first lot here [1]. Then I ended up rearranging and adding stuff to the historical roots section to address you last tag. Fainites ^barley 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Whats passive voice? Fainites ^barley 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Active voice: "The APSAC Task Force stated..." Subject, verb.

Passive voice: "There are controversies within the attachment therapy community about coercive practices." English passive voice gives a better summary of why it's different than I could. I'm a grammar technician, not an artist or engineer. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm neither. Fainites ^barley 23:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<-- And that's why I'm suggesting peer review might be a good next stop. You'll hopefully get an editor who can better work with the nuances and help you in the process. You're communicating effectively, but it's still feeling like it's written at too (unnecessarily, in my view) high a grade level to be considered reasonably good prose. There exist better coaches than I, I'm certain, I just don't really know who they are. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea

If you have time and the inclination, can you revisit Wilderness Diarrhea? It would be appreciated, although the problem is morphing a little. Thanks. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Category cruft

Sure thing. We're going to need to put a lid on this once and for all though, this IP has been adding cruft and ignoring warnings for ages now. Bignole reported him a few days ago but nothing came of it because the IP wasn't active at the time. Do you have any suggestions for dealing with him/her? When it comes to vandalism, I tend to just revert and walk away, but that's clearly not enough in this case.  Paul  730 23:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

s/he just got blocked for 48h, and I put in a WP:AN3 notice as well. It's just stupid. Zythe and I disagreed about a few of the categories, which is cool, because we can--wow--discuss it. This IP editor is like arguing with a wall. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as you know from the whole "You're Welcome (Angel episode)" edit war, I have no patience whatsoever with editors who refuse to discuss changes. When they won't give you so much as an edit summary justifying why they think something should be this way, it's just plain ignorance and you have to wonder if they're just edit warring for the sake of it. Thank you for keeping a clear head and dealing with it in a more professional manner. :)  Paul  730 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Knowing that I'm working with a team of other people who care provides a good bit of moral support! Thanks for your kind words. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with killing the cruft, for the most part, too. Just lending a voice of support.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Larry Kroon

• In every article I included Kroon was interviewed, quoted and/or discussed. Not merely mentioned, interviewed quoted or discussed. His invitation to the fairly outrageous Jews for Jesus speaker was discussed at some length by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency Politico, Andrew Sullivan and other highly reputable sources. The most recent deletion was of an interview that Kroon gave yesterday to one of america's more notorious anti-Semites, and antisemitic web pages. The unwillingness to allow facts to appear on Wikipedia is outrageous. The facts about Kroon are not so bad. He's a Christian, He thinks the Jews need to become Christians. It's not news. it is, however, notable because of who the man is Pastor to. What does need media attention is the extreme bias of Wikipedia editors.160.39.35.45 (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

"it is, however, notable because of who the man is Pastor to." demonstrates that you really need to read WP:NOTINHERITED--consider the last paragraph and apply the same logic to pastor/congregant relationships. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to leave nasty comments on someone's page at least have the courage to sign them.

Mercury543210 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1) WP:AGF. Looks like I was in such a hurry to try and get you blocked for editwarring that I didn't type enough tildes.

2) If the message is both true (it was; review your edit history as desired) and "nasty" (your words), then that's not particularly my problem. See WP:UWT for similar messages. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

chris brils

Hi, sorry but I blanked the page as it is an infringment, it is taken literally from Hedge Fund Intelligence, please remove it

www.hedgefundintelligence.com/eh/WeeklyNews.aspx?ArticleID=2005809 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doelman78 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. In the future, you can add {{db-g12}} yourself. See WP:CSD for the requirements. Also, if you had added an edit summary like "blanking copyvio", I would have known not to revert that edit. Sorry about the confusion. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

John Zogby

i would not presume to dispute you, but i was wondering what makes the edit negative...the name 'Salameh Esad', or the religion change. his brother, james, also had similar edits made today.--emerson7 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to presume to dispute me! I'm always willing to explain why I make the reverts I do.

An unsourced change in ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion is always presumptively negative. That is, whether the change is from Catholic to Muslim or Muslim to Catholic, I presume that a person of faith A would view being falsely portrayed as faith B as a negative, as might their friends, fans, associates, countrymen, co-religionists, etc. If there's no citation for the change included with the change, as these lacked, it presumptively fails WP:V. Note that I didn't revert any of the changes that editor made when they just added middle names or arabic text. I may be splitting hairs here, but I don't see a potentially incorrect addition of a middle name as rising to the level of presumptive negativeness that prompts me to revert it. Does that make sense? If not, tell me and I'll try again to explain my logic. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Civil Air Patrol

I have addressed your concerns at Talk:Civil Air Patrol/GA1. I hope the article now fully meets the criteria. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Super. I'll check it out a bit later tonight. I'm sure you've got it covered. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

rm. It - Wassila Assembly of God - deleted Pakistan press coverage section re a WAoG sermon

I am new and did not understand what "rm.lt" means in the edit reason you left. Why did you delete the press coverage section. All of the coverage I cite is about church sermons given after Palin left in 2002. I completely rewrote it to satisfy numerous objections, removing any POV and coathanger objection stuff, and no living person is mentioned. I did not even say which pastor gave the sermons being reported in the press and blogged on in the Middle East. Again, I am new, and I am the one who created the article in the first place, as my first Wikipedia article, so more explanatoin would be appreciated. EricDiesel (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric, the edit summary was a typo. I was going to type "It's still a WP:COATRACK", but missed the ' and hit return instead. I'm going to reply to the issues on the Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God page. Jclemens (talk)

OK, I am new, and this article was my first at Wikipedia, so I did not even know what a coatrack was. I still think it is appropriate to write Palin left the church in 2002, and most of the news stories on the sermons are for sermons after 2002, so she could not even have been there to have guilt by association. I tried to respond to Farix's coatrack comments by removing this fact, so Palin was not even mentioned in an exculpatory way.

• If you GoogleNews "Wasilla Assembly of God" AND "Hell", this gives a rough filter of stories that have content about the church sermons, since one of the sermons has the word. The church is also notable for Palin speaking their, and saying an allegedly controversial thing (I don't think it is all that controversial, personally) which parallels the controversial sermon getting all the blog and press activity in Pakistan and Iran. But Palin is also in the stories for other things, so the story titles are about Palin.

• Most importantly, I did NOT include references that just said she went to the church. I only included articles that had CONTENT about allegedly controversial statements made AT the church, which were consistent with church positions, or were statements of church positions.

Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• And precisely how many articles you cited had no mention of her whatsoever, hmm? Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Wasilla Assembly of God here

Why did you remove the information about Pastor Kalnins sermons? It was well sourced, by USA Today, and relevant to the beliefs of the church (He is listed as the senior pastor). You quoted WP:COATRACK which is not in fact an official Wikipedia policy but an essay, which it says need not be heeded. However, I see the core of that essay being a concern about POV and I do not see how my inclusion of factual, sourced information is POV. Please do not remove factual, sourced information from Wikipedia in the future. It could be considered WP:vandalism which is a violation of wikipedia policy. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Wasilla Assembly of God

Hi. Your edit to this page was reverted because it was considered vandalism. Please don't vandalize wikipedia. It could result in you being blocked from editing in the future and may prevent the people of the world from having access to free quality information. Also, since we appear to be getting into a bit of an edit war here, let me invite you to discuss this on the discussion page. Thanks. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for finishing off the delsort on Articles for deletion/Kingdom Now theology. I got distracted in the middle of it, and didn't get a chance to finish right away. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)