User talk:Dclemens1971

Nomination of Joel Millanguir for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joel Millanguir 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/Joel Millanguir 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.

Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forest Building

The article Forest Building you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Forest Building for comments about the article, and Talk:Forest Building/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		This award is given in recognition to Dclemens1971 for accumulating at least 500 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

		Rack and pinion Award
		This award is given in recognition to Dclemens1971 for accumulating at least 15 points during each week of the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Do not delete Fievel's Playland page

Please do not delete it, please keep it forever, it should have its own page. don't delete it 70.167.159.125 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion will take place and the community will decide. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

How can I join the discussion, I am desperate to save it please! 70.167.159.125 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed G3 tag from Immaculate Constellation

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the G3 tag from Immaculate Constellation, as I don't think it qualified as a hoax There ARE non-hoax sources available, albeit incredibly limited. It feels more like the author saw something, asked an AI to write an article in good faith, and it just hallucinated a lot of things; its probably also WP:TOO SOON for an article. Cheers! Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 17:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Guessitsavis Yeah, the sources I saw it in were all deprecated at WP:RSP so it def had the flavor of a hoax/conspiracy theory, especially combined with the fake citations to nonexistent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Really? I didn't think NewsNation got deprecated, I didn't see it at RSP. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 18:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

RM closure procedure

Hey Dclemens1971, this is just a friendly reminder that when closing moves, be sure to remove the requested move template in the section on the talk page. When you closed Talk:Tico and Friends#Requested move 8 October 2024, it seems the template was left behind. You can see I've removed the template here. Also, you left a generic {{old move}} talkpage banner, but its always a good idea to make sure to fill in the parameters. If you don't want to have to do this manually, consider some user scripts that do this: I've recently installed BilledMammal's Move+ script. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn Thanks for the pointer and the correction. I wanted to try my hand at closing a move discussion and this seemed like an appropriate one. I appreciate the guidance. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the team! Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971, article, was delete on (AFD_link) now again created by a new sleeper-sock (Lordo'Web) account, draft was submitted by This IP & IP was blocked in true block evasion. Page was first time created by (R2dra)[1] check plz g4 & g5 apply here to many new socks should also be block. Many other slipper sock accounts also found with evidences. Some actions salting these titles and strick against against these sock required.

• [[R2dra]] // [[Lordo'Web]][2][3] [4][5]

• [R2dra // WikiWhizKid1999] [6] [7]

• [Lordo'Web // WikiWhizKid1999][8][9]

• [Lordo'Web // WikiWhizKid1999][10][11][12][13]

Largely overlapping socks with master

One another user also liking to be slipper sock account ==> (Prabhanshu Singh Rajput).[14][15]

Los Juglares del Dexas

Just asking as I'm on the New Pages Patrol. Why did you contest the soft deletion of that article? Tavantius (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi there @Tavantius. It was nominated by a sockpuppet where both sock and master have a long history of disruptive AfD participation. The sock had made several poor nominations with no evidence of BEFOREs done. I have no objection to a speedy good-faith renomination; my request for refund was procedural to avoid rewarding a disruptive sock. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Tavantius (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:CREATIVE interpretations

Hi Dclemens1971 -- Genuine question -- have you had much luck arguing the one-work interpretation in AfD? I can't even recall the last time I've seen it argued that way, but I've largely been hibernating since January. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict I don't recall any particular time I argued it, but I don't recall any time I saw a debate in which a requirement for multiple works was imposed, and the one-work interpretation seems like the plain reading of the policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Analysing sources

I saw at the AfD page for Douglas Kuria that you said that my analysis was not convincing for the sources that I thought were okay. Are there any tips you'd recommend or any pages to look through as to how to analyse sources and see whether they're reliable or not? You mentioned WP:SIGCOV but was wondering what others I should look at. I want to get better at analysing and you seem to know more than I do. Procyon117 (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Procyon117 Happy to give you some brief thoughts. The content (book, book chapter, article, etc., should focus on the subject of the article -- not on his/her company or someone they are related to). It should also include WP:SECONDARY coverage -- that is, not just quotes from the subject talking about him or herself. Here's an example: this Washington Post article is WP:SIGCOV of Richard Trumka Jr. because it goes into depth on him, he's the primary subject of the article, and it includes the reporter's analysis and other perspectives, not just his. This The Hill article about the same person and same issue is not SIGCOV because while it quotes him, it does so in the context of his official role and the subject of the article is something else. It also doesn't include any coverage of the subject (outside of his own quote, which is a primary source) except for his job and who his father was. Does that help? Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It does help actually. So basically if an article just quotes what someone says, or mentions stuff relating to that person, but not actually about that person themself, then it's not WP:SECONDARY? While WP:SIGCOV would require that person being described about in some detail. I think I have that right? Procyon117 (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

So basically, the sources that I said were okay were actually not okay because they were just quotes from the person being talked about and nothing else. Procyon117 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay I think I get it now. Procyon117 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your asking! Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)