Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49

Thank you for your reponse, I guess Bunn matches these criteria of relevancy: 1. he is a national (amateur) champion (AIBA) and 2. he won Chemistry Cup, which is an AIBA tournament of highest category (see here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemiepokal (first sentence translated from German: "The Chemisitry Cup (Chemiepokal) is an international boxing tournament (highest AIBA category) in Olympic boxing [...]"). Greetings and have a nice weekend. --Eazy262 (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, may I ask you a question? The article was released but it is set to noindex (<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>) meaning it wont appear in search engines. Is there a specific reason why it cannot be crawled by search engines (as I havent seen this before on wikipedia)? Is it maybe because it used to be a draft on my personal sandbox (which is/was set to noindex? Thanks for your time, sincerely --Eazy262 (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nvm, I already found the answer^^ --Eazy262 (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Leon Bunn.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eazy262

Does the author of this draft have any sort of financial or other connection with the subject of this draft? Please read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy and make any required declarations. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The NeuroGenderings Network. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:English language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stephen John Lee".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz - Huh. Huh. If it had been my draft, the notification would have been useless. It wasn't my draft. I assume that I moved it from a sandbox to draft space, and if it had been my draft I wouldn't have had an hour in which to claim it. It wasn't my draft. Huh. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta live twinkle. The notification tells you about REFUND. Legacypac (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac - Twinkle is mostly good on things like this. It is a feature and not a bug that it mentions REFUND, which should address the complaint, that I considered silly, by Kvng about quick G13s, which this was. My point here is that the deletion was so quick that even a regular editor who actually was logged on might not respond, but I don't consider the extreme quickness either a bug or a feature, just the way it is. But Kvng and I have different attitudes; they are very sympathetic to editors whom I think are clueless if not self-serving. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly revert to maintain draft "Afetsi Gladys" for my sandbox user page Gkery1

I do not have access to The user account Gladys Afetsi

Do please let us talk before making further changes on any of my submissions, i would appreciate that much better.

Thank you

Gkery1 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Purplewriter (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nadine Epstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added the info box from the entry that you showed me. What else do you suggest I do with this entry? I don't understand why the editor/CEO of a national magazine who has co-authored several books is not considered "notable" enough to get an entry. I'm disappointed that it's not being accepted, particularly since I have read that Wikipedia recognizes that entries on people are overwhelmingly on men and want mores entries on women. If men in the Jewish media (e.g., Gary Rosenblatt, J.J. Goldberg) have their own entries, why can't she? Purplewriter (talk) Purplewriter (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purplewriter - First, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of other stuff in Wikipedia does not mean that a particular article should be accepted or kept. It sometimes means that other articles should be deleted. Second, in this case, there is more information on Rosenblatt and Goldberg than on Epstein. Third, if you think that Epstein is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, you may move the draft to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had added a little more material and I've moved to article.Purplewriter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purplewriter - You moved the draft to Draft:Nadine D. Epstein for some reason. Then you promoted it to article space, as you said. User:Onel5969 has moved it back to draft space as undersourced. Please discuss further with User:Onel5969. I am no longer trying to argue either that it should be in draft space or that it should be in article space. At this point the situation is beginning to look to me like a move-war. My own view is that the issue of whether it should be in article space or in draft space is ready to be resolved by an Articles for Deletion discussion, but that is only my opinion. I do not like move-warring and do not think that move-warring is a useful way to decide whether a page is ready for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] Correct -- you suggested on March 27 that I move it to an article if I thought it was ready. I added a little info and did just that. I did not intend to do "move-warring." I will discuss with User:Onel5969. Purplewriter (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mobile country code. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Lunar Republic, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I kind of feel I should apologise for the CSD - apologies if I've spoiled an April 1st joke. Sorry if I came across as a bit humourless there. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Girth Summit - No apology required. The rules say that one shouldn't do April Fool in article space or Help space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but if I'd spotted that it was your article, I might have dropped you a note here pointing that out rather than CSDing it, in the spirit of DTTR. If I'd racked my brain, I might have even been able to think of a humorous way of saying it... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. In order to keep things uniform and due to other recent kerfuffles over section headings, I've removed your sub-headings at the current case request as a clerk action. Sub-headings also make it a tad more annoying for the clerk team to check word limit, etc., which has been an issue in this case request. Rest assured that, even without the sub-headings, your comments are organized such that ArbCom can fully understand and evaluate them. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! 2 quick things regarding the WP:DRN, as we seem to be the only volunteers active at the moment.

1. I'll be going on holiday. I informed the participants, but if you would be able to take over (and willing to), that would be awesome. It seems to be going in the right direction.
2. If you close a case, please (i) place ((DRN archive top)) above ((drn filing editor)) (as per WP:DRN/V) and (ii) remove <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] xx:xx, xx (month) 2019 (UTC) -->((User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|xxxxxxxxxx))<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->, so that the bot will automatically archive it.

Thanks! --MrClog (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Doesn't look like it's anywhere near properly formatted. 2. It's weird how it talks about Nonchalance and Nonchalance's goals very quickly rather than his work and the person in question. 3. The main issue I have is that it's written more about his businesses than about him.

Pkin8541 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice that the portal issues RFArb has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert McClenon

We would like to publish the draft of GPV Int. on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GPV_International_A/S

Could you please give us further instruction of what we can do and how we can revise the text to make it suitable.

We have a large competitor that features also a site on Wikipedia, and structure and content is obviously quite similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zollner
(which, by the way, has no external citations or references but just one link to their web-site)

And on top GPV already has a web-site on the Danish Wiki:
https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPV_International_A/S

How can we achieve the goal? Thank you for your support in advance.

Erolatccsgroup (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS will never be applied against an Admin and several of the worst offenders are admins. On another note, this may prove useful to you Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac - You forgot to provide a heading, but you weren't responding to a post by a blocked user. I will reply shortly. Thank you for the metrics. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may decide to put up another proposal after the supervote on X3 that turned 22 in favor amd 14 against into a no. There is a an auto counter at List of Portals that says 5,293 portals now. Update 29 [1] Feb 13 said 5,705 portals which should be near the peak. There are over 600+ pages (nearly all portals) in Category:Miscellaneous_pages_for_deletion so maybe 10% of the peak number of portals is up for deletion and about 7% of the peak have been deleted already. I know your a numbers guy so thought this might interest you. Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now 5,112 portals and 1923 pages at Category:MFD Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac - Does 5112 mean the total number of portals in portal space? Does 1923 mean the total number of pages in portal space that have been listed at MFD (in which case the actual number of nominations is less because some of the nominations are bundles)? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The larger # is pulled from Category:All portals which counts actual portals and redirects but not subpages. The category explains how it works. Category:MFD is any page currently with an MfD tag, which should include all bundled pages as far as I have seen. There are far fewer discussions of course. Legacypac (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guess the portal before clicking the link ... that the slipper sea cucumber is avoided by most predatory fish, crabs, and gastropod molluscs, but is preyed on by starfish, especially the leather star? Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac - Well, I knew it should be Portal:Echinoderms or Portal:Starfish, so I guessed it would be Portal:Cucumbers. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert, you're listed as a volunteer on WP:DR/N, so I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. There is a quite vociferous discussion ongoing at Talk:Layla Moran regarding whether a bold edit should be kept on a WP:BLP. The discussion is ongoing in part, but it seems like things are pretty entrenched and tempers are becoming flared. Is it too early to seek dispute resolution if the discussion is ongoing, but it is clear that no consensus will be reached? Domeditrix (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Domeditrix - It is definitely not too early to see dispute resolution. The case is not appropriate for a Third Opinion because there have been more than two editors, although some of them have not been real editors. You could either ask for input at the BLP noticeboard, which sometimes works and sometimes does not, or request moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, or post a Request for Comments to get consensus as to whether to keep or delete the section. I would suggest doing something while the article is semi-protected, because there is no need to try to involve the unregistered editors. (My own guess is that the suckpoppets are just either xenophobic or misogynistic, but that is my guess.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have left numerous messages on your page and not received a single response. My sandbox creation has not been reviewed in nearly two months, and any attempts to ask for help is met with no response. I ask you again, Robert McClenon, please either respond to this message or approve my ignored article. Thank you. Good day to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livonia ainovil (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the draft. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Livonia ainovil - First, did you read the notice at the top of my talk page, that says that I do not usually follow your submission through the approval process? It has been about six weeks since I declined your draft, and I have not researched it fully, but my recollection is that I posted to the Teahouse, which is where you should be asking for advice. There are many drafts waiting to be reviewed, and simply yelling louder is not the most effective way to get your draft reviewed. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse again. I also suggest that you read in Wikipedia, there is no deadline and learn to be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rigel. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert, First of all thank you for your time to review my draft: Daylight Entertainment again. Followed your instructions in the declined reason, I deleted two off-standard sections, which I think contain most of "promotional" words and tones. What remains is data I collected from wiki and other independent source like imdb. To reply your query, one reason is: I started this editing because I found there was only a Chinese page, but no English page. What I did was simply translating. However if the Chinese page wasn't precise, then it's hard for the translating to be qualified. I didn't realize this until you and other reviewers helped. The other thing is about the source: I tried very hard to find reliable English source in order to meet the standard, as well as to reduce the time of reviewing. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much. That is not because the subject is not important to be covered. It's only because most of covering are in Chinese. For example, the "Works" section is the data I found through wiki and imdb. It's not hard at all to find the subject's name. But they are all fragments, not articles. In conclusion, I deleted all expression sections to make sure there is not promotion, and left date hoping they might be helpful in future for other editors. If this is still not working, I will keep revising. This was my first editing and I want to make it better. Just like people say: things are dificult before they are easy. Thank you again for your time and helping. Best, Mclinyang (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nature therapy 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/Nature therapy 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. Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have recently created GEAPSU for Steven Benjamin Damelin, a well known academic. The article providers correct references for everything. The article is not long. It is short and factual. By looking at Damelin on the web it is clear immediately how well known he is. Myself (George Andrews) have compared my page with 100's others in academia and find Damelin's article much better in most cases. The later articles lack references in many ways. Can you edit this article and accept it? I have as you suggest asked the TeaHouse. Thank you very much. Geapsu (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geapsu - It might be a good idea to get some more experience with Wikipedia in general before trying to submit a draft article. Is there a reason why you posted this message at the top of my user talk page? Can you read the instructions, which say to use the New Section feature to post to the bottom of the page? Did you say that I said not to post at the top of the page, because it might be ignored? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been awarded the Portal Barnstar

Suckpoppets like these? — [2] :) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington - Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Lee Dae-hwi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otterlyhwi (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I went through the list of the articles you have created - apparently you have a lot of experience in it. That is why I am asking. Why some of them actually have no verifiable references? Some links don't work at all. What is the purpose of such articles on Wikipedia? Examples: Clothru, Bile_(Irish_legend), Carr_Collins_Sr. What is this article Falls_Church_(disambiguation) about? Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dariakupila - I wasn't employed by Clothru or Bile, and I didn't claim that they existed. I wasn't employed by Carr Collins Sr., although I do claim that he existed. I will research them later today. A disambiguation article is a disambiguation article. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon do you have a proof that I was employed or paid? Do you have a proof that you were not employed? Why do you decline other people's articles but submit yourself without proper references? Dariakupila (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert is a very experienced reviewer of new articles. You should listen to his advice Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac I would if I would have got any.Dariakupila (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I apologise again for inappropriate behaviour and I will choose my words carefully in the future. I do not want to be taken for a troll neither I aim to insult or upset anybody. Dariakupila (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ralph Northam. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, Thank you for reviewing my Draft, I have changed the Section heading titles and created a few sub-headings. I hope this accords with you, I was not sure exactly what edits your specifically required. Regards, Michael Michael773623 (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert

At WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Global issues, you appear to have made two bolded !votes. Please can you fix that?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl Mistake corrected. What preceded sarcastic comment changed to Comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Easy mistake to make, and thanks for being nice about the need to fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about your complaint a bit, and I think it should be possible to only issue the popup alert if the page is older than a given amount of time. Would that be fine with you? What sort of timeline do you think makes sense, three days? Seven? Sorry for following up so much later. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amorymeltzer One day or three days or seven is fine. I just want to be able to use it without the prompt on a page that is at the front of the NPP queue. Mostly they are unsourced stubs where BLPPROD is a good compromise between A7 and AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cannabidiol. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for this[3]. That's v sweet.

I think that in the medium-to-long-term (by which I mean weeks to months), narrow-topic portals like Portal:Kilkenny should go as part of a much-needed systematic trimming of overly-narrow portals. But I hope that this well-made and well-maintained portal on a small topic will be in the last batch to be zapped, just because its quality is such a notable contrast to the abysmal nature of many others on the chopping board.

As we thin the forest of junk, it's handy to be able to point out that narrow portals don't have to be actually broken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your meticulous work scrutinising many many MFD nominations in relation to portals, most recently here[4]. This error-checking is usually a thankless task, but it's a very important part of helping the community to make good decisions. Please keep up the good work! —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:BrownHairedGirl - I have tried to review all of the portal nominations. It isn't being helped by infighting. (You know who/what I mean.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, we need to propose sanctions against at least one member of the portal platoon and probably two or three. Unfortunately, sanctions may wind up hitting one opponent of portals. At some point, we need real Portal Guidelines that aren't just vague. Either that, or a pre-review process, or something. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I'm sorry that I was not able to comment on the dispute resolution (about Casualties of the Iraq War) over the holiday weekend. I suspect that the other editors were similarly pre-occupied. However, I would like to continue the dispute resolution process, and could post my responses to your latest question today. The article has been at an impasse for about a year now, and repeated attempts on the article talk page to make progress have gone nowhere. As you can see from the latest responses from Snooganssnoogans and me, we disagree very fundamentally on how we think the scientific community views the Lancet studies. I'm also pinging Darouet, TheTimesAreAChanging, Jrheller1 and Mr Ernie. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thucydides411 User:Darouet User:TheTimesAreChanging User:Jrheller - Re-opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: thank you, I will comment today. -Darouet (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon please re cheek the references India's lead news media the 'times of India' published article about the zingaSudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[[5]] plz cheek Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sudhakar naidu 118 The draft article should speak for itself. If you think that the production has been notable, please revise the draft to state what has been notable about the film and resubmit. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon sure thank you for responseSudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Anku1992/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:RHaworth It isnt my spam. Twinkle strikes again. Another Meridian Leasing? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions on how to improve the Draft:Fellowship of Friends before a potential re-submission. I implemented the changes you indicated to the best of my capacity; please let me know what you think. Regarding the issue of the organization's notability, in my opinion the Fellowship of Friends matches these criteria of relevancy: 1. The organization has been featured in several major newspapers (the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee among others) over the 48 years of its existence because of its controversial nature, 2. The organization has 1,600 current members and 15,000 former members, and 3. Of the list of podcasts on 42 famous cults on the Parcast web site (see https://www.parcast.com/cults), only the Fellowship of Friends and the River Road Fellowship don’t have an article on Wikipedia (in bold on the list below). By the way, I'm working on a draft for an article on the River Road Fellowship and I would like you to review it if you have the time.

LIST OF PODCASTS ON FAMOUS CULTS ON PARCAST

The Manson Family (Charles Manson), Heaven’s Gate (Marshall Applewhite & Bonnie Nettles), Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God (Credonia Mwerinde & Joseph Kibweteere), The Family (Anne Hamilton Byrne), The Ant Hills Kids (Roch Thériault), The Children of God (David Berg), FLDS (Warren Jeffs), Aum Shinrikyo (Shoko Asahara), The Branch Davidians (David Koresh), The Peoples Temple (Jim Jones), True Russian Orthodox Church (Pyotr Kuznetsov), Nuwaubian Nation (Dwight York), Sect of Nacozari (Silvia Meraz), Apostles of Infinite Love (Michel Collin & Jean-Gaston Tremblay), Church of Euthanasia (Chris Korda), Rajneeshpuram (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh & Ma Anand Sheela), The Brethren (Jimmie T. Roberts), Twelve Tribes (Gene Spriggs (Yoneq)), Oneida Community (John Humphrey Noyes), The Moonies (Sun Myung Moon), The Narcosatanists (Adolfo Constanzo & Sara Aldrete), Leopard Society), Order of the Solar Temple (Joseph Di Mambro), Raëlism (Claude Vorilhon), Church Universal and Triumphant (Elizabeth Clare Prophet), Sahaja Yoga Movement (Nirmala Srivastava), The Hernandez Brothers’s Cult (Magdalena Solís), Lumpa Church (Alice Lenshina), Mankind Project (Arthur Bell), The Kirtland Cult (Jeffrey Lundgren), The Church of the Last Testament (Sergey Anatolyevitch Torop (Vissarion)), Church of Satan (Anton LaVey), The Way International (Victor Paul Wierwille), Freemasonry (The cult that built America), Kashi Ashram (Ma Jaya), Fellowship of Friends (Robert Earl Burton), River Road Fellowship (Victor Barnard), The Sons of Freedom / Doukhobors (Peter V. Verigin), The Workers’ Institute (Aravindan Balakrishnan), New Vrindaban (Kirtanananda Swami), “The Source Family” (James Baker), “Eastern Lightning” (Zhao Weishan)

Greetings and thank you for your help. UltraEdit (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts? UltraEdit (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:UltraEdit - Perhaps you thought that by posting to the top of my user page you would get my attention before the messages at the bottom in the usual arrangement. It doesn't work that way. Did you read the banner that displays at the top of my talk page that cautions you that top-posted messages may not be seen? I didn't see your message for ten days. I will look at it later today, but if you use the New Section tab in the way that it is intended to be used, you will post to the bottom where I am looking for messages. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon I assure you that it was not my intention to attract your attention when I posted my comment on the top of the page -- if that were the case I wouldn't have waited 11 days to ask you if you had any thoughts. At any rate, I apologize for my mistake and I'll make sure I post at the bottom in the future. By the way, the banner that you said is displayed at the top of your talk page is not showing on my screen (see https://imgur.com/a/y3xzlYL). Thank you for your help. UltraEdit (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:UltraEdit - The banner only displays when you are editing my talk page. But in general, do not post to the top of a talk page. If you use the New Section tab, you should post to the bottom of a talk page the way that you should. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon Understood, thank you. UltraEdit (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

== Deletion review for Draft:Fellowship of Friends ==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Fellowship of Friends. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. UltraEdit (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have effected the changes on the AFA Sports Draft page as you instructed, please kindly look at it Best Regards Techrebellious

below is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Afa_sports — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techrebellious (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert - thanks for your time in reviewing my draft. I was seeking clarification to our denial. Was it related to objectivity, or are the links used as references (included below), not sufficient to show sufficient coverage to warrant a page.

Thanks

https://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/as-seen-on/rapunzl-app-507694692.html https://abc7chicago.com/3439386/ https://abc7chicago.com/3396870/ https://abc7chicago.com/business/chicago-startup-roundup-returnrunners-and-rapunzl-apps/3439386/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianCurcio (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Rapunzl Investments LLC. Do you have a conflict of interest? Please do not dump links onto my talk page to ask me to read them. The draft should speak for itself. However, my decline was based on the definition of corporate notability, which has to do with what third-party reliable sources say about the company. Your draft summarizes what the company says about itself. Your draft is not about what third parties say about the company. I didn't have to read the references, because the draft wasn't about what third parties say about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rocket Lab. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Robin Kermode".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JMHamo - Not my draft. I must have moved it from a sandbox to draft space. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my article was recently declined because the subject matter already exists. I believe interest meme would not be the appropriate page for the article because the article focuses more on the law of copyright in US and India rather than the type and uses of memes, which is covered on the internet meme page. In terms of sources, I have only used Wikipedia to link to certain catchphrases and not used it as a reference. The article uses a lot of terms that form of copyright legal discource which have been adequately explained on Wikipedia previously and it would be redundant to reproduce the same in this article also. The other sources used in the article are from published pieces and cannot be sufficiently verified. I hope you reconsider my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoYouEvenMemeBro (talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:DoYouEvenMemeBro - What title do you think that it should have? Do you know how to rename a draft, or should I rename it for you? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DoYouEvenMemeBro, there is another draft called Draft:Meme copyright issues that was reviewed prior to the creation of this set. You should merge that information to that draft if you think the topic is still notable enough for its own article, but it's possible that it could be summarized in a section under Internet Memes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert,

First of all I would like to thank you for letting me know where I did not follow wiki terms for an article. And as I have seen in your user page you have created many articles, thus I would request your help in creating an article for mine.

Also I wanted to understand, you said that my article has be submitted twice. so please let me know how to deal with that?

I hope you are reading this now and would revert as soon as possible.

Thanks, User: Callmesiddie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmesiddie (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Callmesiddie - You requested that one of the two copies of the draft be deleted, and it was deleted. Another reviewer reviewed the other draft, and agrees with me that it is still very non-neutral and promotional. Please discuss it with the other reviewer, or ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I removed what you said were marketing buzzwords, and added more citations/removed external links. For the two books, I replaced the Amazon links with ones from Simon and Shulster and Pearson. Can you please approve this, or let me know if anything else is needed in order to do so? Thank you.--JamesC33401 (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JamesC33401 - You have not resubmitted your draft. If you were to resubmit it, I would decline it. The references do not appear to provide in-depth independent coverage. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment at my request for arbitration (SashiRolls). Before I read that I had already continued the exisintg AN/I discussion. My thought was that because my concern is related to conduct outside of the context of any content or subject area that the appropriate venues are AN/I and arbitration. Is my understanding incorrect? Thanks. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kolya Butternut - Is the conduct related to American politics after 1932? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous sanctions against User:SashiRolls have been the result of conduct in articles concerning American politics after 1932, and of User:Snooganssnoogans has been reported for adding copyright-violating material to articles involving American politics after 1932. I concur with User:Tryptofish that Arbitration Enforcement is a better forum. I see that SashiRolls was previously blocked at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Robert. I just want to thank you for suggesting a block. In my opinion, you were subjected to a lot of pushback that you did not deserve. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tryptofish - Thank you. I think that there is a class of productive but uncivil editors who are envied by some other editors, who would like to be productive uncivil editors when they grow up. The presence of these editors as role models is one reason why they are unblockable, which actually means unbannable. They have lengthy block logs with frequent unblocks. Legacypac is one of these editors, but is a little different because he is not a "content creator" but works behind the scenes, which is why he hasn't been unblocked yet. I didn't realize that Sashi is one of these editors, but apparently he is also. And that's the way it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm starting to see some subtypes of these behavioral categories that are emerging more recently. A decade or so ago, the so-called "vested contributors" were incivil editors who were nonetheless outstanding at content creation. There are differences emerging now, as well as some new types of low-quality editors who like to hang around ANI and comment on almost every thread, effectively arguing that the low standards of discourse that are common at other websites should also be the new standard here, sort of like they had never grown up with a sense of talking to real people face-to-face. I'm still mulling this over, but I intend to comment on it more in the near future. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, thank you for your time to review my draft: User:Edwina Dunn. I followed your instructions in the declined reason, I added to references and deleted words of "promotional" tones. I would like to know specifically what more needs to be done to the page to make it publishable? It is now being considered for deletion. I would like to know exactly where I am going wrong if you would be so kind?

User:Edwina Dunn - The draft in question is Draft:Edwina Dunn. Please follow the instructions for Miscellany for Deletion. Please also read the autobiography policy and the conflict of interest policy. Please also be aware that it is not always possible to make a draft on a subject "publishable" if the subject is not notable, and that most editors cannot write a neutral draft about a subject where they have a conflict of interest. I will take another look at the draft and advise further. It would be a good idea to ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edwina Dunn - You said that the draft is not an autobiography. Are you Edwina Dunnn, and is the draft about yourself? If so, the draft is an autobiography, and saying that it is not is tendentious. If it is, then please be aware that Wikipedia has found, first, that an individual is not the best judge of their own biographical notability, and, second, that an individual usually cannot write a neutral draft about herself. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, thank you so much for getting back to me. I entitled it Edwina Dunn but that is not my name (sorry, I'm Anthony Thompson) I have now explained this in the talk section of my page along with a conflict of interest. Despite the connection, all information is factual, referenced, and written with a neutral point of view. All your time and feedback is much appreciated!

• Comment - Please take further discussion to WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Edwina Dunn. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk)

Hi Robert

We are trying to delete the page but we can't find the delete button which should be (according to the instructions we found online) between the history and move tabs?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks,

Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony at Starcount (talk • contribs) 12:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anthony at Starcount - Why are you trying to delete the page? What are you trying to do? Also, who is "we"? Who are you sharing your account with? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Hi Robert, the review seems to be stuck 'pending'. I would like to delete it and resubmit a new draft. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.192.95.19 (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information regarding my posted article's infringement of policy and guidelines. I will rework the article in hopes to meet the rules of this platform. The last publication received a speedy delete notice. Will this be in place even if I change the content to be in line with the guidelines? Like a black mark on the title of the article that will be dismissed out of hand in the future? I certainly hope not.

Again thanks for any help I can get or advice that may lead to the successful publication of my first addition to Wiki.

Sincerely,

Christopher Roper. Draft:Edwina_Dunn

User:ChristopherRoper - The 'new section' feature is available on most talk pages including my talk page, and adds a section to the bottom (not the top) of the page. The instructions that are displayed when you edit my talk page tell you to use New Section. Is there a reason that you chose to post to the top of my talk page rather than using New Section? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many Wikis. Referring to Wikipedia as Wiki is sloppy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Karikku. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Waggie (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:DeltaQuad - No problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Decline in insect populations. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Passani (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Stefano Vaccara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Stefano Vaccara is a very respected journalist in Italy and elsewhere. What makes him notable is the fact that he was the target of a lawsuit by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi a few years back, but in addition to that he is also a published author that explained the dynamics behind JFK's assassination.

Honestly, I see people that have pages in wikipedia that are way less worth than Mr. Vaccara. I have added all the key references (including an interview on RAI, the Italian State TV) to the article and the Amerigo price which he received lasy year. I hope this makes the article good enough.

Passani (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Passani (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Passani - I see that you have edited the draft since I declined it. As the statement that you read when you edit my talk page says, I do not normally follow a submission through the approval process. I will let another reviewer review it. You may also ask for advice at the Teahouse. However, it is not useful to explain on a reviewer's talk page why a draft should be accepted. The draft should speak for itself. (I see that you have now put the Berlusconi suit in the draft.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The submission for consideration for publication has been submitted. Thank you. Geapsu (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing the article 18 days ago. I see it is waiting for review. If there is anything further you would like to be done, please tell. Worked hard on the article following all suggestions. This has been a continuous process. Thank you.

Geapsu (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert McClenon,

I am writing in regards to the House of Marley article. I am currently a student at the University of Derby for the Writing and Publishing BA, and for an assignment we had to create our own Wikipedia articles for a set deadline. I am also NOT employed by the company, so this is not a self-serving or deliberately promotional article.

I apologise for the page duplication, it was a misunderstanding — I thought the submission form was suggesting I also make a 'draft' page as well as a 'user' page, and was not trying to improve my chances for acceptance.

I would be deeply appreciative if you could give me some constructive feedback for the article — I made a mention on the user/draft talk pages regarding the tone and a potential to sound persuasive, which you commented on. Besides this, what else would you suggest I change?

If you could respond as soon as possible that would also be much appreciated, only due to my deadline restraints.

Thank you,
GoldVine5 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoldVine5 - If this is an educational assignment, who is your instructor? Please advise your instructor that expecting students to create Wikipedia articles by a set deadline is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. See the guidelines on educational assignments. You may ask for advice on draft articles at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should not be persuasive because they should be neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been signing behind you at AN with a basic wikilink. Hope that's cool, also you made a mistake and tagged the wrong Fæ, which I didn't change because TPA etc. etc. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:QEDK - Thanks. Well, well. I had not known that there were two users, one with the ligature and one with the diphthong. If so, if she is using a difficult form of a username, which imposes a burden on the rest of us, she certainly has less right than I thought to make a fuss about pronouns. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert I have included permission from Dr Anne McKnight Director of the Bowen Center for both the content of the Bowen Center website and Bowen Archive as well as excerpts from a book at the bottom of the article. What did I do wrong? NigelNgard11476 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC) ngard11476Ngard11476 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ngard11476 - I don't have the original article, with the permission, in front of me. However, first, as I recall, the permission was a standard copyright release that would permit publication of the copyrighted content in Wikipedia. That isn't the same as a Creative Commons release, which releases the copyright as a copyleft for limited reuse by all in the world, not only by Wikipedia. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and does not accept a limited permission that is only for its own use. That is why it was still subject to deletion as not consistent with Wikipedia's copyright requirements. Second, even if you had provided a Creative Commons release, the purpose of the draft was still promotional, intended to promote a particular mode of family therapy. Third, after I finish writing this reply, I will check whether you have made the proper conflict of interest disclosure. It seems that your only objective is to try to use Wikipedia to advertise your particular style of family therapy. You may ask other editors for advice at the Teahouse, but I think that they will agree with me. I will caution you that continuing to try to push your article into Wikipedia may result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a conflict of interest disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimfbleak - Perhaps you may want to add something, or to agree or disagree with me. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert. The "permission" was claimed in an email to me, so nothing amounting to a waiver on their website or an OTRS ticket. Anyone can claim at the bottom of an aricle that they have permission, so that's worthless too. In response, I posted this on Ngard11476's talk page, stating exactly what you have said regarding spamming, COI, WP:RS and so on. It's a promotional text dump that I would delete on sight even if it wasn't copyright. This editor appears to have ignored everything that they have been told, and approached you to see if you were more accommodating than me! I fear this may not end well if they continue to ignore our advice, Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Superconductivity. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and this draft is my second contribution on Wikipedia. Parmish Verma is a popular Punjabi singer and actor in India. All of his videos on YouTube cross 100 million views in a week. I am a follower of his work and I was surprised to see that he does not have presence on Wikipedia. That is why I wrote this article. I have searched for relevant news articles and accordingly written this article based on the facts available on news portals. I have not picked up any anonymous content from any portal which is not trustworthy. If you go through his social media profiles, you will realize that he is really popular in India. Kindly guide me to edit the article. Since I am new to Wikipedia, it will also be a learning for me. I love music and movies and I am looking forward to write and contribute more to Wikipedia around these topics mostly from India. Looking forward for your support! Best Regards! Abhishekbiswas82 talk 11:48 am, 9 May 2019 (IST)

User:Abhishekbiswas82 - What draft are you asking about? Do you mean Draft:Pragya Dasgupta? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had created a draft of Parmish Verma which was deleted by you. That is how I saw your profile and I was asked to talk to you. I have created a draft again. Request you to kindly review the content if possible. Here is the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parmish_Verma. It will be helpful if you can review Draft:Pragya Dasgupta as well and share your opinion. I can edit if required and you can help me to publish it. Thanking you! (Abhishekbiswas82 (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

(talk page stalker) User:Abhishekbiswas82, there is an existing Draft:Parmish Verma, and the previous deletion was by RHaworth, not this editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In article submission for Ric & Thadeus, the following notability criteria have been met:

- Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

 - the subject has produced a Gold record in Sweden (see cited sources 5 & 6 in article)

- Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

 - the subject has produced a Grammy Nominated song (see cited source 1 in article)

- Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. (Refer to above)

There are adequate sources being cited in the submission. Acceptance should be on the basis of the notability criteria listed above. The subject of the article is mentioned by name in many relevant cited sources. Any cases where the subject's name is omitted from a source, the source was cited to merely back up a statistical claim in the article.

User:196309c The draft is Draft:Ric & Thadeus. Please sign your posts. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft had reference errors, and used Wikipedia as a reference. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:196309c - It is not necessary to put a long statement of notability on a reviewer's talk page. When I said to put it on a talk page, I meant on the draft talk page, and I have copied it for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

apologies. thank you for copying this for me. will await re-review.

Thanks to all the 'Editors' of Wikipedia (who participated in this Test-Project) for providing sufficient ‘evidence’ to seek a court-administered injunction against viewing Wikipedia in India -- unless Wikipedia prominently displays on its each & every web-page a Disclaimer to the effect that 'Wikipedia is not a reliable resource' (this is already officially admitted by Wikipedia on one of its web-pages, and also by one of its Editors during a ‘Live-Chat’) because its Editors are admittedly not ‘Subject-Experts’ and, moreso, some of them have not even passed High School; hence, they may not be expected even to know the true Definitions of 'Encyclopaedia', ‘Dictionary’, 'Research', 'Research-Paper', 'Research-References', 'Essay' etc -- not to speak of being able to understand well the Philosophy of Law and the methodology of writing Legal Articles.

BTW, I am on the Board of Editors of 3 International Research Journals and am a Peer-Reviewer of another International Research Journal which is published on behalf of Cambridge University (UK), my Articles are published on Editorial Pages of leading National Dailies (English) and are read by Legal Fraternity (including Judges), my Papers are presented at International Conferences & Seminars, I have more than 3000 ‘Followers’ (including Academics, bureaucrats, News-Channels etc) who read my Articles published at LinkedIn -- all of them understand my Articles, Papers etc because they all are highly learned Intelligentsia (they are not individuals who have not yet passed even High School). Philhorn (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) uh... your point? CoolSkittle (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philhorn, User:CoolSkittle - This may have been a blatant violation of Wikipedia is not a lab, of testing the behavior of Wikipedia editors to some draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will research this more in the next 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a much more nuanced and fair closure [[6]], thank you for that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hell in a Bucket - The whole point is that a fair closure and a nuanced closure could not exist in the same space. Erasing a notice is hardly a nuance because it is gaming the system. Next stop, either a binding RFC, or WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you suggestion[7] of using templates for making MFD noms.

I thought of that, but there far too many variants of case for one template to do. Plus with templates, I'd have to save first and then edit.

So what I do is to use a clipboard manager to store a range of stock phrases and paragraphs which I can combine in various ways, and hack about in the edit window before saving. More flexible, lower overhead.

But thanks again for the suggestion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought of it, you thought of it. I use templates for messages in declining AFC submissions, such as ((draftautobio)), ((compsays)), and ((noccs)). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul Zawilensky (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dubblestandart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert,

I need help to understand why exactly my draft for the article about the Dubblestandart band, has been rejected and what I can do to solve the issue. The article is in many parts based on the existing article about the Dubblestandart Band on the German version of Wikipedia. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubblestandart and has just been updated with new content. It should exist in the English speaking world as this is mainly where the band and fans live and operate. The Dubblestandart Band has a wide array of collaboroations with international known artists from the Reggae Scene as well as a huge back catalog and is signed for more than 17 years to the well known German label Echo Beach. I believe it qualifies to several of your notability criterias concerning musicians and bands and there are reliable, secondary sources that have independently written about the band. There are countless mentiones in online and printed magazines for the last 20 years!

https://www.allmusic.com/artist/dubblestandart-mn0000211873 https://reader.exacteditions.com/magazines/493/search?q=Dubblestandart https://shop.pmedia.de/p_de/catalogsearch/result/?q=Dubblestandart https://www.falter.at/archiv/search?term=Dubblestandart https://www.forcedexposure.com/SearchResult.html?SearchType=Basic&Type=artist&Key=Dubblestandart https://fm4v3.orf.at/stories/1712230/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_Sound_System

I can also upload a file with collected printed material if needed... If there is an issue in the way I have listed or categorized , pls advice how I can do better...:) Please let me know, what exactly the issue is about, so I can update... Many thanx Paul

Paul Zawilensky (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul Zawilensky - First, do not upload a file with collected printed material, and do not dump links onto my talk page. It is not useful to provide documentation to a reviewer. A draft article should speak for itself. Allmusic is not a reliable source. Do not use Wikipedia as a reference. I will review the draft shortly. However, I suggest that you ask for the opinions of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul Zawilensky - Did you read the comments that I made on your draft? Most of your English draft is not written in complete English sentences. It needs to be edited into proper English paragraphs, preferably with section headings. Also, as I said, it is not clear which of the musical notability criteria the band satisfies. It may satisfy one or two or three of them; a reviewer should be able to tell which ones. Your draft has introductory material that is not part of the article. We do not want that. Please organize your article into sections in English sentences. If you have any further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. I suggest that you might want to consider declining to give a third opinion at Talk:Being and Nothingness. Drevolt has placed a request for comment regarding the editorial disputes at the article. The request will inevitably attraction attention from multiple other users, meaning that the disagreements at the page will no longer be between two people only, making this a situation in which a third opinion is inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI.
I am not knowledgeable about the disputed content itself, but If there is any other way I can help just let me know. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Abecedare - I am not knowledgeable about the content either. I expect the participants to educate me as to the content. However, it appears that one editor is going back to arguing that we should not have split the two articles. I think that the split was a consensus decision. Please clarify exactly what the nature of the sanctions were that were imposed on Bh. I have re-alerted both parties to discretionary sanctions, but I think that one is innocent and one is being tendentious. Do we give one more try, or do I fail the DRN and let it go back either to you or to Arbitration Enforcement? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskar currently is only prohibited from discussing the issues related to Kamarupi articles outside the DRN-process. That is a voluntary measure but, if needed, discretionary sanctions can be used to back up or expand the prohibition.

FWIW, my impression from when I reviewed the ANI report is similar to yours with respect to the conduct issues. And as far as the content dispute goes, to me it is noteworthy that initially uninvolved editors, Richard Keatinge and Aeusoes1 who took a detailed enough dive into the subject ended up on one side of the debate (I readily concede that this is an imperfect metric). That said, by now you have the best independent and detailed view of both the content dispute and the disputants' conduct. So I will let you decide on how and how long to drive the DRN process. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abecedare - My thought at this point is to start two minor RFCs and then see if the parties are willing to close out the DRN and resume discussion on the talk pages. I don't know if that will work, but I don't know if anything will work other than a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the subject is to esoteric and requires to much prior knowledge/reading for it to attract outside opinions at the the RFCs. But they are at least worth a try. The latest RFC, which asks a very focused question may well serve as an entry point for some new editors. To aid the effort, I have advertised the discussions at the India-project noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a lot of scholarly knowledge involved. Of Indian languages, it is Sanskrit that is esoteric. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare and Robert McClenon, some online resources on the subject maybe of your interest, thanks a lot to both.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bhaskarbhagawati - It is not helpful to advise a reviewer, mediator, or other third party to look at additional information. A draft should speak for itself, an article should speak for itself, and any references should be discussed in mediation. There should not be any side conversations about article content; that should be discussed on the article talk page, or, in this case, on the discussion talk page. I am ignoring that link. If you want a specific change made to one of the articles to reflect content in that link, make that request in response to my call for changes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Internet censorship in China. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "John Ferrar".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC) User:JMHamo - It wasn't my draft. These mentions don't do any good for the real draft author anyway because the deletion after the tagging is speedy. I hadn't realized that it was six months ago that I moved that draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list.
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/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. You are the volunteer that's been helping me out with my dispute. I left you a comment and was also wondering the way forward. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Draft_talk:National_drinks. Thanks. BrieDeChevre (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the DRN JFG posting appears somewhat DOA, could you remove your Template:collapsetop "WP:TLDR" and just post a note there that you "didn't read" my Summary of dispute by X1\.? It took hours to write, my first posting at DRN, and there still are still editors working on that section. Searching can not be properly done unless [show] is done every time, which is annoying. It will be used as a reference for future potential discussions; see for example per 15:18, 24 May 2019. X1\ (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see now you've closed it. May I remove the "collapsetop" myself? X1\ (talk)

User:X1\ - No. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No to both questions? (see first sentence) X1\ (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:X1\ - No. To both questions. Leave the closed case alone. You may copy your overly long post to your own talk page. Other than that, if you spent hours writing it, I am not responsible for the fact that you spent hours writing it. You may copy the material to your own talk page or a user page. Do not edit a closed archive. Editing a closed archive is disruptive and may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. Do not edit a closed archive. X1\ (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it was correct of me to restore a deletion (by 123IP) from the Archived DRN; see User talk:BullRangifer#123IP edit at archived DRN. If it was someone else's role to restore (unrestored for over 19 hours), my apologies, as I stumbled across it during clean-up of my user talk page. X1\ (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive changes to an archive can be, and always have been, fixed by any editor acting in good faith, so you did the right thing. Hopefully the matter ends there. Pushback to your fix would be deliberate disruption that should be sanctioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm going to mentioned yet again by these people, I might as well be notified. As I've outlined on my talk page, I removed something that I never actually placed there, or intended to be placed there. My changes to the archive were completely constructive, since that was not actually an archive of what I said as my dispute summary. That had absolutely nothing to do with my summarisation of the dispute and I'm quite distressed to see another editor, particularly someone very personally against me, place something in there that had nothing to do with the dispute and without context. However, I completely respect if it would be more proper for someone else to remove that paragraph rather than myself. I was certainly not aware that it had been placed there again a final time, otherwise I would have removed it before the archiving. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion taking place as to whether Portal:Adele should be deleted at MfD.
You are being notified because you were a participant in the previous nomination discussion.
Thank you, (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert. In your opinion, is there any special rule (or usual practice) that prevents editors from putting their own comments into talk threads started by others? I notice that an ANI has started up in which this is one of the complaints. After noticing this issue, I went to look at the header of DRN, which appears to stress the informality of the process. Certainly at AE we would not accept people commenting in the wrong section, but AE is nothing *but* rules. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston - Thank you for commenting and asking. Exactly. That's the reason why I think that the thing is a tempest in a teapot, and that it wasn't worth harassing me about. Courtesy and honorable tradition are what apply to coloring inside the lines at DRN, and the fact that the sections are designated for statements by the editors, and that some of the editors have been to AE or ARC or some other forum where coloring outside the lines will get your crayons taken away. I didn't think that it was worth the original flap, and I certainly didn't think that I should be either ordered to correct the transcript or whined at about correcting the transcript, but I went ahead and tried to correct it because the coloring outside the lines was making the children cry. I didn't and don't see a formalized talk page guideline for cases that are waiting to be opened. If I open a case, I require that the editors respond only in their sections, but I do that pursuant to the mediation guidelines rather than a specific talk page guideline. At this point I think that both editors have been unreasonable, but I just want to be finished with this particular dispute and go back to counting portal views. Dammit, Jim, I'm a computer scientist, not a lawyer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one was trying to harass you, and calling us "children" is really beneath you.

Volunteers at drama boards have signed up for certain custodial duties, and those duties can include fixing irregularities which can cause misunderstandings. One might say they have enhanced refactoring powers. You have that authority. Without it you wouldn't have much of a job there. I suspect that EdJohnston shares my opinion. If not, I'm very open to learning more.

If there is any question about this, then the instructions for volunteers should clearly state this, but not doing this type of thing would mean that minor matters would get escalated and create a hell of a lot more disruption. We try to prevent that using simple fixes. If nothing else, IAR and common sense certainly apply.

I tried to fix the problem and communicate through edit summaries, but when that obviously wasn't working, I decided to take the issue to you for a quick and easy fix. I had no idea you would balk at doing it. I wasn't asking you to do anything that numerous other volunteers at drama boards do routinely. Now that you've fixed it, I will thank you and let you get on with your business. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just because there is lots of talking at DR/N does not make it a talk page. Other guidelines apply, and they are much tighter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a dispute (about talk page behavior) like this had come to WP:AN3 I suspect it would have been closed with warnings to both parties. If DRN doesn't actually *have* the rule that BullRangifer was trying to enforce, I'm not clear on how his action was justified. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:BullRangifer wrote: "BTW, just because there is lots of talking at DR/N does not make it a talk page. Other guidelines apply, and they are much tighter." Show the guidelines to me, and I will show the talk page guidelines to you. "The guidelines below reinforce the prime values of talk pages: communication, courtesy, and consideration. They apply not only to article discussion pages but everywhere editors interact, such as deletion discussions and noticeboards." So talk page guidelines do so apply to noticeboards. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that clarification. Thanks. My point is that there is "more" to a drama board than an ordinary talk page. There are "more" rules than just normal talk page rules. If DR/N is an exception to the rules which apply at other drama boards, that's news to me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if you double my pay, you can try to assign me twice as many duties, which doesn't mean that I will take them. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the parties at DRN were acting like children quarreling about a coloring book, and I was trying to sweep it under the rug rather than look at it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston wrote: "If DRN doesn't actually *have* the rule that BullRangifer was trying to enforce, I'm not clear on how his action was justified." Yes, thank you, but he wasn't trying to enforce it, but to compel me to enforce it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. Over and out. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[8]. That user had already US politics DS alert (3 weeks ago). Just saying so you know. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:My very best wishes - Is there any simple way to verify whether a user has been notified within the past twelve months that both avoids the risk that they will slip out of Arbitration Enforcement by not being notified, and ensures that the innocent party will not notify them twice? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to notify a person of sanctions using ((subst:alert...)) and click on Preview it opens up a dialog in which you can search for previous alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know he hasn't given up - check Draft:Chamupa Unlimited (Musician). Dan arndt (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dan arndt - I have put a comment in the draft for the deleting administrator to please consider putting 'Chamupa' into the title blacklist regexp list. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thanks for closing the Dispute Resolution God, although I had sent 10 mins working on a response when you did it. MusenInvincible has been a real nuisance on God as you can see from the page history 4 different editors have had to revert major irrelevant additions. Looking at their talk page [9] it seems they have a long history of disruption. Can something be done ? it is very disheartening and time wasting having to deal with people who are not willing to engage but would rather indulge in edit wars and escalations. Unibond (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unibond - As you can see, they have been blocked in the past. Read the dispute resolution policy. However, if they won't discuss, and persist in edit-warring or other disruption, you can go to WP:ANI and request a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your plea at AN/I to "go and take your combination content and conduct dispute to Arbitration Enforcement and let me go back to counting portal views."[10] — JFG talk 07:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Robert McClenon,

Thank you for the review you did to my page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ethyl_lauroyl_arginate. I have followed your advice and I'm no longer using the (R) symbol. I have also included more references.

Would you be so kind as to review again the page and give me any other advice that could, to help me have my page published?

I want to change the page name from "Ethyl lauroyl arginate" to "Ethyl lauroyl arginate, (LAE)" but I don't have the "move button" How can I do it?

Thank you very much for your help.

Yours faithfully, Marisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCF19 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting here because I saw the suggestion for Ethyl lauroyl arginate (LAE) as the name for the article. We don't normally employ abbreviations this way, as part of the article title. Also, one of your references says "LAE is the dehydrated crude product containing 85-95% Ethyl lauroyl arginate HCl". So if this is true, then Ethyl lauroyl arginate is not exactly a synonym of LAE. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, User:MCF19 - There already is a stub article on ethyl lauroyl arginate, the pure substance. I have recommended that the draft be copy-pasted over the stub. There is so little information in the stub that a history merge is not necessary and no harm is done by a copy-paste. (I know that a copy-paste is normally deprecated.) Is LAE actually the pure substance, or a commercial product containing primarily the pure substance? An earlier draft had a (R) symbol, which I said to remove, so I am somewhat concerned about promotion, but we want to describe every substance in as much detail as we can. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Mr. Robert McClenon,

Thank you for your comments, I have followed your advice and I will name the page "Ethyl Lauroyl Arginate Monohydrochloride". Nevertheless, I cannot use the existing previous page of "Ethyl Lauroyl Arginate" as this has a different CAS number: 48076-74-0 and my page has a CAS number 60372-77-2 that corresponds to the monohydrochloride molecule" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCF19 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MCF19 - Do you have any conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Mr. Robert McClenon, No I don't have any conflict of interest, but from my point of view it seems more accurate to describe this molecule with its correct CAS number, so if I do as you suggest me to copy paste in the already existing page, I will be eliminating another molecule no extending its information, may be I'm wrong...Can you advice me once more please? Best regards,Marisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCF19 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Dear Mr. Robert McClenon, Could you please give me some advice on how to proceed? as I explained to you both CAS numbers are not the same, and I think that renaming my article it would be better for Wikipedia. What do you think? Best regards, "MCF19 (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)"MCF19 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Mr. Robert McClenon, Can you please help me with my last question? I would appreciate it the most. This is my question: "I will name the page "Ethyl Lauroyl Arginate Monohydrochloride" as I cannot use the existing previous page of "Ethyl Lauroyl Arginate" as this has a different CAS number: 48076-74-0 and my page has a CAS number 60372-77-2 that corresponds to the monohydrochloride molecule, if I do change the name of my page ("move" it) Do you think it will be ok for Wikipedia?MCF19 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Mass Spectrometry Foundation. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is a plea for help, since I don’t want to take yet another noob to any of the drama boards. Yesterday a new editor waltzed in, changed the inclusion criteria in the list, edit warred to keep it in, despite my objections. I have reasoned with him, laid out my objections, pointed to BRD, all to no avail. I am at my wits end. Could you interfere as a neutral party and keep me from going French Revolution on his pars posterior? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kleuske - You were both past WP:3RR. The other editor was substantively wrong, but I didn't want to do anything that might get you both blocked. So I have thrown an RFC into the works. I am sure that you can present the solid case why the list, which is not meant to be legal (after all, there have been no legal titles of nobility in France since the Third Republic was instituted in 1871), should reflect legal titles, so-called courtesy titles, and for that matter widely accepted pretensions. After all, the reason why Louis XIII and Louis XIV started enforcing rules about titles was that there had been a lot of people claiming them, some of whom had more legal basis than others, and legality was always a little uncertain anyway when the king was said to be absolute but couldn't collect new taxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn and blast. You’re right. I could have sworn I slammed the brakes at 3RR. Thanks for your efforts. At the moment i’m editing under the influence, so I’ll respond on the TP tomorrow. Kleuske (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon,

You are wrong : even in 2019 under the French Republic, in France authentic titles are legal and considered as a part of the name. LE SCEAU DE FRANCE,TITRE NOBILIAIRE..

As I wrote in talk page I give up because I waste my time trying to explain something that English contributors don't understand (I do not blame you...)

I wanted only to improve it but in fact I don't care because its in English and in France nobody cares about it, so its not a problem the contents of this article is wrong and confusing with some fake titles (that are "courtesy title"). I prefer improve the same aticle in French. Goodbye Wikipedia in English and thank you both for your desire to understand what is not your culture... --Frenchmarquis (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HI Robert McClenon, The Geapsu article has been edited to include connections to the famous mathematician Charles Fefferman--widely considered the best mathematician in the world. Steven Damelin has 4 papers with him. Also a note on the strong connection of Steven Damelin to the famous mathematician Paul Erdos. Steven Damelin has several papers on Erdos weights introduced by Paul Erdos and has an Erdos number of 3 from 6 mathematicians.

Thanks for helping with this article and we looking forward to it being published.

Geapsu (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this was on Commons, I would tag it as ((PD-text)) because I don't think it meets the threshold of originality. Would you not agree with that assessment? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2601:142:4201:F4AE:11E2:8A4C:FF31:7E6B (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Tgeorgescu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi Robert, just a point of correction regarding your ArbCom statement, the Foundation had nothing to do with the introduction of the BLP policy. That policy, including the decision to create it, is the work entirely of the editing community. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind striking that? I think it's important to make clear that that's a community policy, in case anyone sees your post and believes that it came from the WMF—especially in light of the CEO's recent comments about our policies not working. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlimVirgin - Oops. I had marked up my statement and was planning to insert a revised version with additions, but then it was at about 560 words, so I didn't replace it, and then was interrupted. Done now. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Robert. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For moderating a knotted and long-standing (7+ years!) dispute and resolving some central issues by, in part, showing ability to be flexible about the process and firm about the content policies. Thank you. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, just a minor request, Could I change my draft name from Draft:CamEd Institute to CamEd Business School? I found that I cannot change it to CamEd Business School because this page title was previously blocked. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phengly Oeung (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Robert for your help with WIKI. Could you help to check with permission ticket Ticket#2019070310000777 and Ticket#2019062810000795 as the owner already submitted the Copyright permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phengly Oeung (talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phengly Oeung - What is your association with CamEd Institute? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon - I am staff at CamEd Institute, responsible for website and data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phengly Oeung (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phengly Oeung - In the future, when you submit a CamEd Institute, you must make the conflict of interest disclosure. It would also be a good idea to rewrite the description in your own words. That is easier than proving that you have a waiver of copyright. Also, I am not entirely sure that CamEd Institute understands the impact of the CC-BY-SA copyleft, but I am not sure that I understand it either. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon for now, do i need to submit additional reference? Please advice...

Just curious, but how long does it take for a dispute resolution to start? Dispute resolution was requested by an editor here, and it seems like it has been sitting here for a long time. There continue to be all kinds disputes between editors in of that article, and I think things will just get more and more tangled the longer things wait. One editor, at least, is very unwilling to wait, and it's been quite draining. - GretLomborg (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for your help with the DRS process. Greatly appreciate your efforts. Chaipau (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We may have disagreements in regard to ANI or other WP business, however I thought you deserved a torte. We are all working toward the same goal.

User:Lightburst has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place ((subst:Dobos Torte)) on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polyphenol. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:William_Lane_Craig. One of the editors in the dispute has begun editing the article again (see [11]). I do not think the dispute resolution has been very helpful in resolving the differences, as they seem to be too fundamental, however I've been holding off from making any edits to the article while the dispute resolution is in progress out of respect for the process. However, I don't really see that as being a good option while other editors continue editing. The editor in question already aggressively pushed the article in their direction prior to the first statements of the dispute.

Could you undo their edits and protect the page again? I think that would be best for the dispute resolution.

Thanks, GretLomborg (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GretLomborg - Thank you for reporting the violation of mediation rules. I don't care to revert edits or go back to page protection, but if there are any more rogue edits, I will fail the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I see you've closed the discussion, which is unfortunate but understandable. I'm not sure if you noticed, but one of the disputants removed some of your moderator comments prior to closure: [12]. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GretLomborg - User warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this edit to be taking a side in the dispute that is not only unwarranted, it is in strict violation of WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I just noticed the close and consider it reasonable. After my last edits there (which were admitedly also out of process), I realized that there were too many irregularities and would have likely stopped participating myself (for reasons unrelated to how it was moderated). —PaleoNeonate – 02:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you singling out me and not commenting at all on the problematic behavior of the other editors involved in the dispute resolution process is indicative that you should not be a volunteer at WP:DRN. Please consider resigning. If you do not think this is problematic, please explain why you think it appropriate to insert yourself into a substantive content-claim about the dispute (that Craig's positions are not pseudoscientific) is somehow justified in the course of moderating. You have also poisoned the well with respect to the conflict itself, causing it to develop in a worse way than it was before.

Please respond.

jps (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have formally requested your resignation here: Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Request for a meditator to resign.

jps (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Audi Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mediator Barnstar
		Thank you for trying to mediate the difficult dispute about William Lane Craig. It probably doesn't feel like right now, but your work is appreciated. GretLomborg (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By some, but maybe that dispute is unresolvable. I resolved an impossible dispute about Indian languages last month, but it took a sword of Damocles. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You closed the topic, and I have no complaints about you in any way - on the contrary, I thank you for your participation. But now, it is as if my time was wasted and my opponent won this round simply by not doing anything. And now I have to try this RFC, in hope that SOMEONELSE will FIX the issue? But it is obvious that SOMEONELSE will think: "Oh, this guy was stood up on the DRN, probably this is a wikilawyer, or the issue is not worth it." The format of the DRN does not provide for any conclusion with which I could go further on instances (or, conversely, to abandon further attempts to change something for the better)?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nicoljaus - Do you have a question? Have you tried to edit the article and been reverted? My advice would be to make two attempts to edit the article, and another attempt to discuss on the talk page. If you make two attempts and both are reverted, and there is no further discussion or no further constructive discussion, it is clear that the other editor is being passive, and you can publish the RFC. I am not sure who you are referring to as SOMEONELSE. If you publish the RFC, and it goes your way, it allows you to fix the article. If the RFC is in your favor, and then you fix it, the other editor does not have the right to revert your edits. Do you still have a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to edit and there were two reverts ([13], [14]). Further discussion is fruitless - the opponent gives statements with references where the exact opposite is said, but he feels fine with it. The last speech on TP was mine. My question is whether the time spent here can be converted into some advantage in the RFC so that it "goes my way". Because I doubt the success, for the reason I described above (Everyone will think: "Oh, this guy was stood up on the DRN, probably this is a wikilawyer, or the issue is not worth it).--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nicoljaus - Well, since you have your mind made up, it will not be useful for me to try to advise you any further. Go ahead and give up.

I personally would conclude that the editor who failed to respond to the DRN request was the one who was being passive-aggressive, but if you already know what the answer will be, that is that. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you are upset, it was not my intention and I am very grateful to you for your efforts. But this was my first appeal to the DRN and, to my regret, I see nothing but lost time. Maybe I'm wrong (well, it happens).--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My money's on a returning user blocked for tendentiousness.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dlohcierekim - Yes, but either not a long-term abuser, or a long-term abuser who doesn't know their way around, because their efforts to conduct the RFC were, well, ignorant. Because they have a static IP address, they are easier to block than other similar users. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Families are Forever".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... by writing excessively well-reasoned deletion rationales.[15]

Scandalous, eh? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they do have a point (not WP:POINT), although it is a dinky point. (Does that have to do with an opposable pinch to knit without needles?) They are correct that with a shorter nomination and supporting statement, some editors would usually !vote Delete, and some would always !vote Keep. (Portal skeptics don't always vote !Delete. After all, we know that a difference of opinion between two portal skeptics ended with one of them indeffed for insulting the other one.) However, the well-reasoned rationales that are seen as oppressive by portal fans are oriented primarily to middle editors and secondarily because portal skeptics, being reason-based, need to persuade each other. Maybe, for those who would prefer to divide Wikipedia or any other community neatly into camps, reasoned arguments are oppressive. (There was a family therapist who told me, 16 or 17 years ago, that I was oppressive. I never did understand why, but thought that she (the therapist) just had her mind made up. Now I see that maybe I was oppressive because I was reasoning at length. Anyway, I concluded that she was oppressive. But that is all in the past.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl Maybe using the same paragraphs or same tables of measurements several times because they apply to several MFDs is oppressive. Duh. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the perceived problem is that presenting actual reasons for deletion (rather than just a vague wave at POG) requires any "keep" !votes to be accompanied by actual policy- and evidence-based reasoning. This impedes those who just want to be able to say something along the lines of "keep cos it is a portal!!!". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, User:BrownHairedGirl. There are two related but different abilities that H. sapiens has that other primates do not, to use language and to think or reason. Deletion rationales that are based on thinking are oppressive to a primate who only wants to use language without having thought behind it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I like puns. Want! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl - See apophasis, known in Rome as preterition. Or don't see it. I will probably also engage in preterition on the MFD for Portal:Epistemology about a priori and a posteriori knowledge, because those are terms of art in epistemology. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But surely discussing the field of about knowledge in its own terminology is oppressive? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, 4 portal MFDs were closed overnight, all as delete: Baptists, University of Texas at Austin, University of Houston and War of 1812.

That brings the the total number of portals down to 896, which is the first time it has dipped below 900.

Before TTH began the automated portalspamming, there were 1500 portal. So 40% of those have now been deleted.

When we were around the 1500 mark, still clearing out the last of the automated spam, I honestly thought that the total would settle down at about 1400. But even now that we are way beyond that, I am still finding portals which are not just abandoned, but stillborn. As you have seen, I nominated a dozen of them in the last few days alone, and there are at least three dozen more portals on my list of apparently-abandoned-and-need-assessment-for-possible-MFD.

For me, the most telling feature of the rest is Category:Unassessed Portal pages. It includes some redirects and subpages, but I use AWB to exclude them and found 681 remaining. So even after removing 40% of the portals, clearing out the worst, 75% of the remainder haven't even had a cursory assessment from the portals project.

I think this explains some of the rage from portalistas. Having done no assessment process, they had no measures of the very poor state of the collection, so are shocked to find that so many portals are in such poor state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert. Could I ask if you would be able to give some advice to another editor, please? I noticed that another editor (HRShami) was all set to create numerous Lists of Fellows of the IEEE, based on their membership pages (see List of IEEE Fellows). So I left this comment for them] on their talk page, and they responded with a question as to whether they should delete all the red-linked lists. My opinion is that they should, as I think the lists themselves are flawed (because they just copy the IEEE lists, and insufficient numbers of people are 'notable' in a Wikipedia sense). But I could be wrong. So I would be immensely grateful if you could review my advice to them, and offer them your view on the way forward.

I should add that I think it would be acceptable to create one List of Fellows, and to only include 'notable' people with articles already here on Wikipedia, but to mention which IEEE section they're members of. But all the other names should be left off, per WP:NOTDIR.

(I'm not going to be around much for a while to be able to contribute further on this, so if you aren't unable to assist, I think we both would appreciate if you could suggest to them another editor or venue where they could ask. Obviously, the Teahouse is one such place, but I thought of you because of your long experience with Articles for Creation and also deletion discussions. Sorry to have bothered you if this isn't really your area of interest or expertise. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tuo Chiang-class corvette. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent this page packing. You supported 'delete' but if you think I've acted out of process, let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is fine for it. Shortcutting MFD is often fine. Thanks, User:Kudpung. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I don't look in at MfD very often these days but I'll bear this in mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon to start editing.

Edit Cards

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

1. Section editing
   • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
   • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
2. Loading overlay
   • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

• Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
• Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
• Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
• Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

• Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
• Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Steven Crossin 03:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've opened a discussion on Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Wikipedia_dispute_resolution_for_complex_disputes. As you've previously been involved in dispute resolution on Wikipedia, I'd appreciate your thoughts there, if you have time. As I am sending this to quite a few people, the text is somewhat impersonal :) Steven Crossin 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Steven Crossin. Yes, I will be replying at Village pump (idea lab) when I finish composing my thoughts. I think that the first thing that we need to do is to improve the triage process for incoming complaints. Then we need to have at least two tracks for disputes that require mediation, a fast track and a slow track, and some disputes that come in do not lend themselves to mediation, but perhaps to some other form of resolution. But I will be replying at VPI shortly, so this is just an ack (acknowledgment). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I’ve also sent you an email above with some other notes. The content isn’t overly private so I don’t mind if you reply on my talk page or via email. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poking you re above - haven’t seen any response yet? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steven Crossin - I replied at length at VPI. Did you want something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, I sent you an email about DRN specifically and separate from the VP discussion a little while ago. As I mentioned above, a public reply is fine if you prefer. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steven Crossin - You didn't say very much in the email, and it was mostly capable of being addressed at VPI. You did make one comment that I didn't think was constructive, but I chose not to respond to it. Is there a problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m puzzled as to what in my email you’re taking as unconstructive? My email was focused on how to get more volunteers involved at DRN, and since its mostly just the two of us there, I am considering ways we can get more people involved. The same comments I made would apply to any other volunteer if they were commenting on threads shortly after they are opened unless they were taking on the discussion. Just for clarity, this is what I sent. Can you let me know what part you had an issue with so we can work towards creating a better DR process on Wikipedia?

Email I sent: Hi Robert, I hope you're well First of all, thank you for all your efforts at DRN over the years. While we may have different approaches to dispute resolution, you've nevertheless kept DRN going over the years, so thank you. I am writing to you after giving how our DR processes work some thought. As you know, I've been doing DR for pretty much my entire Wikipedia life, and am thinking about how we proceed from here. Looking at DRN lately, I do notice that a lot of threads are commented on pretty quickly by yourself, and I am wondering if this approach might cause potential volunteers to look at the request as "taken", even if the dispute isn't open yet and that isn't our intention, and we might benefit from some fresh blood in dispute resolution. I was thinking of doing a volunteer drive by reaching out to those that sign up as Third Opinion volunteers, or those that offer RFC thoughts through the Feedback Request service. That way, we can get more people involved in DR over the long term. Would love to talk more about your thoughts with this one.

Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steven Crossin - I should have responded with encouragement about the volunteer drive. I half-overlooked it. Do it. I was annoyed by the comment about responding quickly to cases. I think that I only respond quickly to comment on whether the case is properly filed and is a content dispute. I think that cases should be at least responded to quickly. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s what I wanted to discuss. At the moment DRN is just largely you and me, and I wonder whether part of that might be because a prospective volunteer sees the discussion section and thinks that the case may have been taken, even if the comment may not give this impression. I’m merely asking if you would please consider, for now, only commenting on content cases you intend to personally handle, so other new volunteers might look at these and be willing to step their toe into our dispute resolution efforts. Since we have very few volunteers, I think it’s worth a try. I would however agree on commenting quickly on obviously malformed disputes, or clear conduct disputes, though at times some conduct disputes have an underlying content factor that should be weighed as well, of course. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steven Crossin So what do I do if I think a case should be taken by another volunteer, like the Scott Storch case? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steven Crossin - I will point to the Scott Storch case both to request clarification on your comments in general, and to explain why I found the comment in your email to be non-constructive. You essentially told me not to comment at all on a case if I was hoping for another volunteer to work it. At least, that is what I think you said. The case wasn't malformed, and I didn't have a reason to dismiss it, and it doesn't seem to be a conduct dispute. I would like to ask if a volunteer is ready to work the case. But that would be against the instructions that you have sort of given me. So your advice only gives me one more way in which I don't know what to do. Can you please possibly ask for a volunteer to handle that dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert, I’m not at all opposed to you chiming in on a dispute after say 24 hours if another volunteer hasn’t commented to note to the involved editors that we are looking for a volunteer to help handle their queries, and the talk page of DRN is probably a good starting place to ask for other volunteers input. My remarks above are more to give that period of time for another volunteer to take a look and leave cases that we aren’t going to handle for others to pick up. Over the next couple of days I’ll cobble together a list of people to reach out to and see if I can get some more participation here. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steven Crossin - Do you at least understand why I ignored that part of the email, seeing it as non-constructive? You may be be completely right, but when we aren't doing enough, being told not to do even the minimum of asking for a volunteer just makes me feel like I have been given useless advice to leave alone. I would appreciate it if, at least, a comment were made at DRN saying that we need a volunteer to handle the Storch dispute. I'll leave alone. I expect that the dispute will now go back to edit-warring, but that is just me. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you for this. Brilliant! I love it! -Girl]]-BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl - You're welcome. I think that I will create User:Godot, who doesn't log on, as a legitimate alternate account. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I love that idea. Please do it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl - It didn't work. There already was a Godot. Maybe we should assign portals to him. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pity. However, there is no User:Estragon ..... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estragon is in Italy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

test 75.170.135.165 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to recreate this draft with adding a table which contain matches who Ian Foote refereed during his carrer.

Can you remove the protection of this draft plz ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Ian_Foote

No. Robert McClenon (talk) 14

20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

When the protection will be removed ?

I dont know. Maybe 2038.

Maybe a year after unregistered editors leave it alone.Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert_McClenon, just a quick update and two questions regarding the draft article about Boundless. (I am sending this to both you and JC7V7DC5768 who have previously reviewed the draft.)

1) An article ran earlier this year in TechCrunch (an independent reliable source) that focused solely on Boundless, but it has not been added to the list of citations. May I add it to the intro to the article, since it supports the information there? ^[1]

2) I have been reading other editors' comments about articles with too many references. The consistent takeaway is that they would appreciate it if only the highest-level references were retained, in order to simplify and clean up articles with multiple sources for the same information. May I review all the references to Boundless Immigration in the draft article and remove any excess links? I do want the article to be in the best form possible going forward.

Thanks for your help with this, as always. Messier6 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Simone Merli, I am a producer for Soundwalk Collective. I recently noticed our wikipedia page has been taken down on your suggestion. We have had a number of different office interns who's approach to editing has proved detrimental. Can you let me know if it’s possible for us to exist again on Wikipedia? We have quite a large background of projects over the last two decades, and we have released 20+ records on various labels, and been a part of many exhibitions (I have seen artist pages with a lot less). What do you suggest? Thanks Simone. Simone.Blackbirds (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simone.Blackbirds I suggest you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Your problem is not one or two interns. This is a case of trying too hard to be listed in Wikipedia , and being obviously promotional. Wikipedia is not here to help you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Urolagnia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I see you closed my request for help on the dispute resolution page for the Mike Cernovich NPOV dispute. I would like some clarification, if you could.

It says the request is closed due to not notifying the other editors -- as you can see, I did notify the other editors on the Cernovich talk page.

The dispute resolution form never asked me to notify anyone; and, I did put all of their names in the field in the form asking for names.

I did not see any request to notify the people I had already specified, as I did not check Wikipedia over the weekend. Anyway, can you re-open or provide guidance and proceeding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MaximumIdeas - The instructions say: "Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice." You didn't notify them on their talk pages. I did comment after 24 hours that you had not notified them. 72 hours later, you still had not notified them. What next? I see no reason to re-open the case myself, but you can re-open it by filing it again and by notifying the other editors properly. Since there is a consensus against you, if you do initiate dispute resolution, it may not change that. My advice would be either to accept that you are in the minority, or, if you do want to whitewash the lede, post a Request for Comments. That is my advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Test. 173.10.184.18 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:U.S. Route 131. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Gary Schwartz (actor) for deletion, because it seems to be an article that has been already decided by a [decision] to be unsuitable for inclusion.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Onel5969)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969 - Interesting. Twinkle thinks that it is my article. It is only mine because I moved a page from the sandbox to draft space two years ago, and now this page was moved from the sandbox to article space. I will let the reviewing admin, who can see the deleted article, decide if this is a G4. If the G4 is declined, I will be among other editors to participate in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, stuff like this happens from time to time. The reviewer tools automatically alert the article's "creator". I can't see the deleted article, so I have to look to see if their is anything in the new article which occurred after the date of the last AfD which, imho, would change the notability of the subject. In this instance, again imho, this is simply a working actor, who has kept working. Nothing in GNG or NACTOR would indicate his status has changed since the AfD. Sorry to have templated you.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969 - Not a problem. If the G4 is declined, then AFD is next, and we can both participate in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Gary Schwartz (actor) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Schwartz (actor) .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Onel5969)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969 - Something went wrong with your AFD. It has re-opened the first AFD rather than creating a second AFD. I don't know what to do next. I think that we need help from an admin, but I don't know what board to use to request help for this. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gary Schwartz (actor) 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/Gary Schwartz (actor) (2nd 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I just closed a bunch of MfD's, and I noticed that towards the end of several of these discussions, you requested that the closing administrator relist the discussion. I thought I'd send you a few quick notes regarding what I did and why:

1. I saw your requests, but I did not relist any of the discussions.
2. I'd like to give you a gentle reminder that anyone who is closing deletion discussions understands that relisting is always an option available to them at any time, and understands when it is appropriate to relist. So, there is no need to request a relist.
3. I'd invite you to take a look at WP:RELIST to review the conditions under which a deletion discussion should be relisted. In particular, it says, "That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a 'no consensus' closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." All of the discussions where you requested a relist had substantive debate; it wasn't as if there were only one or two voters. Therefore, I didn't feel that relisting was appropriate on any of them.

‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 04:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Scottywong. I think that I understand. I will comment that I thought and still think that the portal advocates hadn't made a coherent case for Keep, and I would still like to see a coherent case for Keep, even if I disagree, because, as it is, I feel like I am trying to argue with ghosts. No Consensus is fine for the ones that you found to be No Consensus. I will also note that the date subheadings in the MFD stream are now disarranged, with August 20 after August 27. This may have happened when you were deleting some of the deleted portals. I don't know what causes the disarrangement or what to do about it. Thank you. I understand why you didn't Relist them. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding, Robert. I certainly understand that it's frustrating that a deletion discussion needs a clear consensus to delete, but only needs an unclear consensus to be kept. It's not uncommon to see the more savvy keep voters simply trying to muddy the waters in a close discussion, in an attempt to force a "no consensus" close, which is functionally identical to a "keep" close. Luckily, the folks that designed WP's deletion processes (and, more generally, the policies surrounding consensus) were wise enough to foresee this, and not base the closure of consensus discussions on simple vote-counting. If one side is making policy-based arguments, and the other side is merely trying to muddy the waters with unfounded opinions and feelings-based rationales, and both sides are roughly equal in number, the closer can still decide to weigh the policy-based arguments more heavily and close it in favor of that side. ‑Scottywong| [converse] || 17:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, User:Scottywong, but a No Consensus isn't functionally equivalent to a Keep. We know that a No Consensus can be renominated in approximately two months, and a few editors in 2019 (unlike in the past) do not intend to rely on empty promises to maintain and improve portals but will actually recheck whether the promises are being kept. If the portal defenders actually maintain the four portals that you closed as No Consensus, that will be a pleasant surprise. Otherwise, they will face another nomination. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, since a few portals you term "toy portals" are still up at MfD, I would like to try to convince you why you should be against them. I will ping BrownHairedGirl since she may have valuable input as well.

First off, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground, fair, sporting event or book group. It's purpose is not to be "fun" for editors, although there is nothing wrong with enjoying your time here or cracking some jokes/sharing stories along the way with friendly editors. The portals project has been a complete disaster by any sane measure. By now, about half of the pre-TTH portals have been deleted because they were abandoned junk and there is no end in sight to the heap of junk portals that remain. Portal fans think all portals are fun, and therefore want to keep all portals or as many as possible regardless of quality, maintainers, readers, or any sane metric. Toy portals, like the heap of maintained Germany related ones, are vines in this forest of crud.

These vines, while they don't bear poisonous fruit like abandoned junk portals do, serve to obscure the junk portals from scrutiny by making many more portals that must be sifted through to find the junk ones and worse still, create a precedent of keeping portals that knowingly wildly don't meet the broadness, readership, or maintenance guidelines of WP:POG. Allowing any portal that fails POG to stay gives cover for any other portal that fails POG to stay, which contributes to the issue of portal advocates kicking and screaming to keep abandoned junk at MfD. The sudden push to keep Portal:Antarctica was no doubt at least in part fueled by the belief that if the least inhabited and least notable continent on Earth can have a portal, than all continents can automatically have a portal.

Likewise, if some obscure German region can have a portal, why not any place on earth as long as one person at MfD says "I want it! I want it! He got to keep his junk, so I should to!" A hard line must be drawn, Robert, that any portal that fails POG needs to be swiftly uprooted to protect the forest from corruption. Toy portals, like any portal that fails POG, are rot that must be cut out or the whole forest will become a den of policy-failing corruption. Think Greenwood the Great to Mirkwood, if you know Tolkien.

We have learned over the past six months (even though I wasn't here for most of it) that nearly all portals were just toy portals and have long since been cast away by those who made them. Allowing any toy portal to stay is to allow the same disaster zone to recreate itself because there is 15 years of hard evidence that todays toy portals become tomorrows abandoned crud portals. Please help delete any toy portals you encounter at MfD to stop this once and for all. Once the portal forest is thinned, it should be much easier to get new POG guidelines in place or reevaluate portals' place on Wikipedia if required. That a top 45 in views portal like Portal:Death was complete crud bodes ill for this forest. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newshunter12 - I have read your argument, and I largely agree. I haven't decided whether it has changed my view. I will point out that I have not been !voting to Keep the toy portals, but only am neutral on them. In view of how many portals are currently nominated and how far behind I am in reviewing the nominations, I still see some value in viewing some of the nominations as more important than others. And my recollection is that the corruption of Greenwood the Great into Mirkwood was primarily due to Sauron. I don't see any of the portal advocates as being actually evil. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I of course wasn't saying portal advocates are evil, just illustrating a point. Also, it takes just as much time to vote delete as it does neutral like you did at these MfD's. Tsk! Tsk! Newshunter12 (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Robert, I have to agree with what Newshunter12 writes. I was pointing in the same direction in my comment[16] at MFD:Portal:Ore Mountains, but tried to keep it brief and gentle. NH12 has been more forceful, but think NH12 is right.

The harmless fun justification could have been applied to much of TTH's portalspam. Taking each portal individually, they were probably fun with little harm (tho I disagree about no harm) ... but taken as a set they were a nightmare.

Sure, Bermicourt's mega-navbox portals are actually curated, and not just bloated clones of another page. But as NH12 points out, toy portals are dependant on the continued attention of the editor who created them; it's unlikely that any other editor would take over portals on such narrow topics.

If we keep B's portals on those narrow topics, I really do fear that it will be a precedent for more portals on very narrow topics. Portal:Mullingar, Portal:Witney, Portal:Cherbourg? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl - Ack. (In military communication, short for acknowledge.) I will consider. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am relieved that the military term in use is "ack" and not ack ack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon & @Newshunter12: If the German toy nano-portals survive, I hope it will OK for me to move Portal:Ballyporeen to portalspace. It's a much broader topic than those mountains in MercedesLand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@BrownHairedGirl I'm not sure whether to be delighted or heartbroken. The four remaining German nano-portals were all deleted at MfD which is great, but it's a bitter pill to swallow knowing you will no longer feel confident enough to bring Portal:Ballyporeen to the vast number of readers clamoring for this portal with the broadest of shoulders. If you need a wiki-shoulder to cry on during this difficult time, I'm here for you. Hugs BHG. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for helping to resolve the Institute of_International_and_European_Affairs page dispute! Ballystrahan (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just close my request about a dispute resolution that a user name Chandy of Pakalomattom's has been repeating undoing the page's infobox classification type, over refused to accept its a unique type of Syrian Christian denomination like its splinter denomination the St. Thomas Evangelical Church, even its clearly provided both by the Church's page and the website's "Heritage" page???

Also I get that one of the reasons why you closed it due of I didn't make a discussion in the article's talk page, due of how unfortunately isn't popular the article is, so there no unfortunate point of discussing there; despite one user is diehardly serious about the Church's identity for no reason. But also I did start making a User talk discussion at its User page, the User:Chandy of Pakalomattom as a starting point since yesterday. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chad The Goatman - Wait for User:Chandy_of_Pakalomattom to respond. Read the discussion failure essay. If discussion is lengthy and indecisive, you may file another request. If they do not discuss, but they edit-war, you may consider reporting them at the edit-warring noticeboard. Also consider the advice of User:EdJohnston. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know, if that user ever respond to other users like even EdJohnston himself tires to responding to it, with no reply back for now, or ever go to others pages in this site–if I undo his edits, except for me predominantly and those two pages named Reformed Eastern Christianity which is right now on deletion that way too early for this moment, due of I requested to temporary to lock both pages, because of it's actions. And the other person who in this conflict is literally myself, because it keeps me building up my anger, everytime its adding a nonsensical reasons and a 'failed' source to defending its claim that lets to nowhere. Like I wished it needs to stop, and accept what the page and their 'official' website literally provides it to understand it seemly favored to my side.

For that Edit-war noticeboard, I already did it two Sundays ago (August 25th) as seen here as I already mentioned, but due of my mistake (which I was realiz(s)ed) that it has deliberating creating that account to mis-abusing it to defending its view of the Church's identity supposed to be. Chad The Goatman (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chad The Goatman - You may edit the article if you do not edit-war. If the other user does not discuss, read the discussion failure essay. Either edit the article, discuss with the other user, or report the other user. By the way, DRN volunteers are human editors too, and are likely to be angry if you say, incorrectly, that we were unfair. Be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. 173.10.184.18 (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Duodecimal. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McClenon, I could not improve the article on Chhana Pandey further due to limited information. Will this page remain as a tab which can be extended later or it will be delete. Can you spare time to explain it to me? Bhattuc (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bhattuc - If you cannot improve the draft, but if you edit it every few months, it will remain in draft space. If it is left alone for six months,it will be deleted. If you cannot find further information about the village, perhaps it is not notable. Have you considered editing Wikipedia in your first language? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Robert McClenon. Thank you very much for starting the RfC and for all of your assistance in all of the preceding discussions. A sentences in the RfC reads: Should she be alphabetized as: A. de Lesseps, Luann (national origin of name, French) or B. Lesseps, Luann de (nationality of person, Americ