User talk:Dclemens1971

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to WP:AfD. It's located (not literally but figuratively) at the intersection of Think of the children and A Whole Bunch of Wik.ipedia.Prons are Neurodivergent. If that's not potentially controversial, then I don't know what could be. Also, Merry Christmas! Bearian (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrollers have always been encouraged to constructively peer-review each other's work, but having encountered this editor at AfD, I checked out her page reviewing (and then followed her to PERM to criticise it) begins to sound more like hounding. – Joe (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe Thanks for the note. To clarify the sequence, I came to PERM to search for an unrelated archived request, and while there I saw her request and the discussion at the top. I recognized the editor's username from the previous AfD where I had observed a confused/misguided understanding of source analysis, particularly for a new page patroller, and so I decided to do a spot check. Not following anyone around! Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe And I'll ask here rather than go off-topic at PERM, but I am curious about your comment about draftification. The MoveToDraft script has It needs more sources to establish notability as a standard reason for draftification, and the reasons for draftification at WP:DRAFTYES are "not limited to" to the three reasons currently listed. I have indeed draftified articles within the 90-day window if their sources do not indicate that the subject is notable. If this is against consensus, there should be probably be clearer instructions at WP:DRAFTNO and the script should be updated. What are your thoughts? Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. That is indeed a much less worrying timeline.

Yes the discrepancies between the draft script and WP:DRAFTIFY is a long-running problem. There's two sides to it. One is the script itself, which has a slightly odd list of reasons but which only the maintainer can change. The other is that the list at WP:DRAFTYES is missing some common reasons that have an unclear status w.r.t to community consensus. I've suggested that we organise an RfC to add these, but haven't got around to doing so yet.

WP:DRAFTYES is not exhaustive, as it says, so there's nothing wrong with people draftifying for other reasons as long as they are not on WP:DRAFTNO and are otherwise consistent with policy. I personally have never been able to square the script's it needs more sources to establish notability option with WP:NEXIST and WP:REFBOMB, but others disagree. My comment on WP:DRAFTYES above was specifically in the context of reviewing others' reviewing, i.e. it's fair enough to draftify things for reasons not on the list, but not to criticise others for not doing so, if that makes sense. – Joe (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Joe Roe. I am just a regular editor, but as you mentioned, in some cases, @Dclemens1971 seems to act in a way that could be considered hounding. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@24eeWikiUser: I responded three weeks ago to your accusation above. I came across your articles in my feed in the course of routine new page reviewing, and several of them I marked as reviewed and did not nominate for deletion because I determined they met the standard (diff, diff, diff, diff). Hounding is a significant violation of Wik.ipedia.Pro practices and norms, and I would appreciate it if you would provide diffs that substantiate your accusation instead of repeating it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971, I repeated after Joe because, even 4 days ago we were discussing on my talk page about your nominations to pages I wrote. It might not be hounding but without being careful, some acts can be considered as one. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Dclemens1971, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Benison, the same to you! Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025
	Hello Dclemens, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creepTalk 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a Merry Christmas to you as well @Scope creep! Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Dclemens1971, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Pbritti Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Pbritti (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you too @Pbritti! See you around the project in 2025! Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to asking for your input on a few Virginia and Anglican interest articles coming soon! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Dclemens1971, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article, Nande Mabala, meets Wik.ipedia.Pro's citation guidelines and is supported by reliable and verifiable references. If there's any changes requiring special attention, please highlight. I believe the article follows Wik.ipedia.Pro's policies, including neutrality, verification, and reliable research. The News24 and Independent Online are reliable enough. There's even enough verification on Miss South Africa 2023 Horizons2025 (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been quite clear in the discussion that I don't agree that sourcing that consists solely of an interview with the subject or tabloid coverage counts for establishing notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit the article now that the interview sources were removed. Please let me know where else requires improvements. Horizons2025 (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for your nomination, and your kind words in support of it. Saratoga Sam (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saratoga Sam My pleasure and keep up the great work! Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Great work on creating the The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism article. Not many essays are individually notable but this one is and you did a good job explaining its significance. StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention that the Animal Studies Journal works with, but is not a part of, the AASA. The citations from and about the journal are separate to the AASA. I can improve the article. The conference papers are from Google Scholar, indicating some notability. Starlighsky (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Starlighsky According to the AASA, AASA has a long and close association with the Animal Studies Journal. That does not sound remotely like an independent source; I think we would need something far less affiliated. But please do continue improving it. I tagged it to flag for attention, but did not draftify due to your track record of article creation. I will check back later if another new page reviewer has not gotten to it first. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It improving a lot right now in terms of citations and so on. Starlighsky (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nande Mabala has been thoroughly revised to remove unreliable sources and now includes reliable, verifiable references that demonstrate compliance with Wik.ipedia.Pro's notability guidelines. Given these improvements, why does the article remain nominated for deletion? Horizons2025 (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horizons2025 Because I don't agree with the other editors, and the closer who relisted the discussion asked for additional feedback as to "whether or not sources provided supply SIGCOV." Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article, Nande Mabala ,aligns with the significant coverage guideline as outlined in Wik.ipedia.Pro's notability policies. The topic has received extensive, detailed, and independent coverage from reliable sources, which substantiate its significance. Horizons2025 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 I was recently notified of comments on an article regarding George Leonard Chaney. You were identified in the email I received. I would be happy to improve the article, but the comments lack enough details to provide any fix. Can you assist with specifics? Please confirm if you are the correct person I should be contacting. The comments:

• This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably.
• This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience.
• This article possibly contains original research.

Since the comments contain subjective terms such as "may be too long," "may contain," and "possibly contains," it is difficult, if not impossible, to implement improvements.

The article was reviewed by AI software, which rated it 98% for correctness, clarity, engagement, and delivery. It was structured to inform both a general reader and a scholar. Other available articles on Rev. Chaney lack important details and contain several often repeated errors. This article was designed to correct those deficiencies. I am particularly concerned about the observation regarding "original research." This article was well-researched using contemporary newspaper accounts and archival material and footnoted accordingly.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide. UU Archivist (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UU Archivist: The page curation software delivers those notifications automatically, which is why the language is the way it is. I will say this:

• Under WP:SIZERULE, a page of 9000+ words (which this one is) should generally be divided and trimmed. This page is very long considering the subject matter is a relatively obscure individual. The organization of the page is poor, with far too many headings.
• This leads to the "intricate detail" argument, about which -- there is no reason to have so much obscure detail. For example: At the American Civil War's end, Chaney traveled to Europe in June 1866 for a three-month vacation. During his absence, the Hollis Street Church was closed for renovations. No information on his itinerary or traveling companions, if any, has been found. What is the relevance of this detail? Why is it included? What encyclopedic value does it provide? There is a vast array of content in this biography that is like this.
• The original research is the biggest problem. Per WP:NOR, Wik.ipedia.Pro presents a summary of what secondary (and sometimes tertiary sources) say about subjects, and rely only in rare instances on WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs and contemporaneous news stories. You have used those documents extensively to write this article, with the result that this article reads more like an original research paper than an encyclopedic treatment. Lots of statements appear to represent your own view of Chaney, not a summary of what secondary sources say. Here is a sampling of original research claims in this article: What is clear is that Chaney believed in a loving God who resided within us. ... Consistent with his optimistic view of humankind, Chaney rejected the orthodox Christian dogma of original sin. Chaney observed that the concept of Adam's fall and its consequential generational sin rested upon the unquestioned acceptance of a few lines of scriptural texts. Chaney's biblical criticism was more demanding and eschewed the literal reading of Genesis scripture. ... Chaney cautioned that the truth in the Bible is offered like a precious ore. It must be worked to reveal its value.
• The "Myths" sections is also a form of original research and a violation of WP:NPOV, in which you are responding to statements(?) by unsourced individuals. An encyclopedia treatment would instead weigh a variety of opinions on Chaney rather than classifying some of them as "myths." In a Wik.ipedia.Pro article, every contentious statement should be able to be backed up with a reliable, independent, secondary source unless a policy permits a different source.

I don't believe any of these problems are surmountable. I do think the subject passes the test of notability (WP:N), which is the main thing New Page Reviewers are asked to do when we review a page. What I've mentioned above are content problems. They are serious, and need to be addressed, so please don't remove the tags unless you or another editor can successfully address them. Hope this helps. I appreciate the work you are doing on Unitarian-Universalist history and biography. Please be sure to ask questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE, where volunteers are happy to help people understand how Wik.ipedia.Pro works! Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DID YOU DELETE AND BLOCK MESBMR6710'S ACCOUNT? Vycdema123 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		This award is given in recognition to Dclemens1971 for conducting 1,952 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 Thanks for your speedy and well-crafted response. I am in intense knee surgery rehabilitation, so my attention to your observations may appear slow. I will do my best to address the issues noted.

• Too long. I see from the parameters you noted WP:SIZERULE that it will take time to address editing or creating a new article.
• Original Research WP:NOR is a more complex problem. You wrote that ‘’contemporaneous news stories” were extensively used “with the result that this article reads more like an original research paper than an encyclopedic treatment.’’

However, the Wik.ipedia.Pro page “No original research” declares, “To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.”

The article on Rev. Chaney does cite reliable and published sources that directly relate to the topic.

The contemporaneous news accounts include newspapers such as The Atlanta Constitution, The Christian Register, Boston Herald, Boston Observer and Religious Intelligencer, and other newspapers are reliable sources. Other contemporaneous sources include the American Unitarian Association’s official publications, information from Boston and Atlanta Unitarian archives, and Rev. Chaney’s own paper, The Southern Unitarian.

Wik.ipedia.Pro guidelines state, “The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source.” The Reference section contains URLs to cited sources, allowing direct verification. When no online resource is available, information on the physical location of documents is provided.

Finally, In general, the most reliable sources are

• Peer-reviewed journals (Harvard Square Library)
• Books published by university presses (Unitarianism in the Antebellum South, published by the University of Alabama)
• University-level textbooks (not used)
• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses (see list above on reliable sources)
• Mainstream newspapers (see list above on reliable sources)

I suspect you’re a volunteer and doing your best. However, declaring the Chaney article is based on “original research” can be challenged.

If we can resolve this particular issue, I would also like to discuss the review of the article based on a Christianity template. Unitarians at this time declared they were Unitarian Christians and offered that Orthodox Christians were incorrect in their interpretations of scripture. So who's the Christian? UU Archivist (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOR carefully. A few quotations from that page:

• Wik.ipedia.Pro articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.
• Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. If you follow the link to WP:USEPRIMARY, you'll find further explanations: A reporter's notebook is an (unpublished) primary source, and the news story published by the reporter based on those notes is also a primary source. This is because the sole purpose of the notes in the notebook is to produce the news report. If a journalist later reads dozens of these primary-source news reports and uses those articles to write a book about a major event, then this resulting work is a secondary source.
• A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Policy: Wik.ipedia.Pro articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

Translation: you can use contemporaneous news sources, but not to make analytic, evaluative, and interpretive claims, which you do. You have plenty of secondary sources, but you have far more primary sources than you do secondary. If you disagree with me about this article containing original research, you're free to do so, but I'd suggest you get an uninvolved third opinion, which you can request at WP:3O.

As for your request to discuss the review of the article based on a Christianity template, I'm don't understand what you mean. I didn't review it from any particular perspective. The Rater tool automatically classifies UU-related topics within the "Christianity" WikiProject (not necessarily a decision I'd make but that's how the project has been structured). You're free to remove that classification from the talk page if you like.

Good luck with your recovery! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to thank you for withdrawing the AfD for this article, and also to let you know that I learned that this player was reported as Elguezabal in some Spanish-language media such as Mundo Deportivo. After modifying my search of its archives for that spelling, there were many additional hits, including some very useful ones like this so I'm quite confident SIGCOV can be demonstrated now. So, I really appreciate you bringing this article up for attention at AfD; hopefully it's in better shape now. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogurney Thank you for fixing it and finding the sources! When I nominated, I figured there was a good possibility sources were going to exist but would be hard to find, and I'm glad you were able to do so. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971

Thankyou!

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for this, I have sorted the references out, by reading through books etc. If you don't mind, could you please look through this again? Apologies if it's not ready yet

Nabulowa (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]