. Thanks for your quick turnaround! I'm trying to stop Stephanie and Grazie from being published! I'm trying to get the hang of building my pages here =) I put my submission on the appropriate page...I think!

Hi Robert, thanks for your review of my entry on draft:Erwin Reifler. I just resubmitted my draft. I added two more references include one of his own publication in a recent anthology of classic essays in Machine Translation. I think these are enough to guarantee his notability as an early researcher in Machine Translation. Please let me know if you have further suggestions. gazagoal —Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you taking cases others have already volunteered for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebCite (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, Thanks for your kind suggestion, to create a software company wikipage, I just created it as other software company, like Paragon Software Group, they also listed what the software they sell, they are the same format. Please give me more informations about how to fix this page. Thank you for your assistance!

User:Keybord-Man - Please sign your posts with four tildes after them. Please use the New Section feature to post to the bottom of the page, not the top. I will be commenting on your draft at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HI Robert,

I have, I hope, made the requested changes and added several new links to wikipedia articles along with tidying up the references list and I have also added external links. ::The draft in question is Draft:Mexican_Telecommunications_Reform_2015-16_(RED_COMPARTIDA)

Thank you for your assistance!

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Expulsion of Cham Albanians". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 October 2016.

Hi Robert, I have made the changes you suggested on this draft topic. Please read and sign-off when you have a moment. Riaz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riaz Dean (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Stone Tower. When you ask about an article, please provide a link to the article. I will ask for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert you requested

Remove words "new article content".

Its now done.

Is it possible for you to accept the contribution?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIM2014 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The previous reviewer was not optimistic about establishing notability. Neither am I, but I am willing to ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse to comment. Do you have a connection with the subject organization?

This year I am working with this organisation as part of the preparations to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the ATM in 2017. But I am full time academic employee of Bangor University (Wales)

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:ATMIA. When you ask about a draft, it is helpful to provide a link to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply and apologies for missing the link. KGirlTrucker81 has looked at Draft:ATMIA and thinks there are problems as it "includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations"

I will have a look and come back to you (as there doesn't seem to be a KGirlTrucker81 talk).

Again thanks Bernardo —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:CIM2014 - There is a User talk:KGirlTrucker81. Also, if you are working with the ATMIA, have you provided the conflict of interest disclosure? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not received payment from them. It is part of my job as we are asked for "public engagement". But can and will add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIM2014 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a paid editing policy and a a conflict of interest policy. If you are not being paid, you still have what is known in Wikipedia as a conflict of interest. I become cynical about at least conflict of interest when I see a new editor whose edits focus entirely on getting one or two or three articles into article space. I invite you to participate in improving Wikipedia more generally, but I know that many single-purpose accounts come only to get "their" article or articles approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I thought a strong candidate in a competitive congressional election would be notable but I guess I'll have to wait and see if she gets elected. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is Draft:Angie Craig. I have two problems with the draft. First, it is non-neutral, and reads like an endorsement of Craig. Second, we have a political notability guideline, by which national and state legislators are ipso facto notable. Most other politicians have to satisfy general notability guidelines. In general, because there is a notability guideline, many reviewers use a strict standard with regard to general notability of candidates who do not satisfy political notability. However, I will be taking a discussion to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
   1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
   2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
   3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Si467 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Si467/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert Thanks for your feedback on the draft submission for James Calder. It may ahve been duplicated as I have now taken over from the previous guy. I hope the latest edit conforms to Wiki. Any advice much appreciated. We will try to get more articles submitted as we become more experienced with using Wiki (we are a group of academics and used to publishing in peer reviewed journals not Wiki!!) Best wishes, Si

Si467 (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for joining the The future of NPP and AfC Work Group

There have been been recent discussions and some special task pages have been created. for your attention and input. Please visit the following pages to get up to speed and add your comments, particularly the straw polls and priority lists. Please also add these pages to your watchlist.

• en:Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC/To do
• en:Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr. McClenon -- I'm recently copied a version of the proposed article about Clipperz Password Manager which I considered to be the best onto my personal Wikipedia page. Unfortunately I did not realize that it would be automatically resubmitted -- not my intent. Just to bring you up-to-date, I revised the Clipperz entry based on your good feedback that additional references were needed. However the next reviewer complained that the article read like an advertisement. I didn't agree with that assessment but modified the article again. However the next editor felt that the pared down article didn't rise to the level of notability needed (of course I had to remove many of the references to make the article less "promotional"). Long story and 45 hours of effort later I have given up on creating a Wikipedia article about Clipperz and no review is pending. However, I plan to retain a copy of the proposed entry on my personal page. Regards,

Toddkatz (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 03:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon I'm going to say I'm sorry but I won't do that again in the meantime may the good lord bless and keep you. 2600:8803:7A00:19:657C:3396:A35F:8786 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't there be a 3rd option, "Neutral" (in addition to "Keep" and "Remove") or something to that affect? Bubbecraft (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They can say that themselves, or they can say nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Embby (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Travelers United (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have asked editors at the Teahouse for their comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert, Thank you for your guidance on my AFC submission (Gerhard Medicus). I would like to get this reviewed...if you think there is a chance for eventual acceptance. Medicus has embedded himself many times with indigenous tribes in Indonesia to further his studies over the years...maybe I need to bolster that experience? On additional draft...I am a rookie..still trying to hunt down the old copy to delete. Thanks again for looking this over! Behal509 (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have two currently existing drafts, at User:Behal509/sandbox and Draft:Gerhard Medicus. Which draft do you want reviewed? Yes, if you have reliable reports of his field work in Indonesia, they should be included. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, User:Behal509, what is your connection to Gerhard Medicus? Are you working for him, or do you merely happen to know about him (e.g., because he was one of your professors)? If you have a connection other than knowledge, you need to declare a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Robert. I was one of the translators(German to English) and helped with proofreading for his book: Being Human - Bridging the Gap between the Sciences of Body and Mind Behal509 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert, I deleted the draft. The other sits in sandbox. Thanks Behal509 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert, Wondering if we can reconsider review and submission for Gerhard Medicus. Was accepted by German Wikipedia. It seems they would have reviewed references. Thanks Behal509 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Cofeebk23 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ZendyHealth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good Morning Robert, When you have a moment can you please assist with a re-review the Wiki article on ZendyHealth. I have made it less advertorial and decided to reach out instead of re-submitting for review through wiki. I am not yet certain of the appropriate etiquette and if this was incorrect please advise. Also, if you have further suggestions I would love to hear them to help get my 1st article submitted. I hope to be a long standing creator/editor in the future, but as you can tell my feet are pretty wet.

User:Cofeebk23 - My first advice, if you want to become an experienced editor, is to focus less on creating one article and more on various less difficult but useful ways that you can help the encyclopedia, such as copy-editing. I will look at your submission soon, but that is my advice for now. Many editors seem to think that the best way that they can help is by creating one article. At this point, in the English Wikipedia, with more than five million articles, we really need more help with the articles that we have than with the articles that we don't have. If you want advice on how to contribute behind the scenes, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Cofeebk23 - Although it is an improvement, I am not ready to accept it. Listing its leadership isn't necessary, and still reads as part of an advertisement. I don't see the reason to list its competitors either. In an article on the industry sector, listing the competing companies might be reasonable. I don't yet have an opinion on whether to accept. Do you have a connection with ZendyHealth, or did you just decide, in order to become a more experienced editor, to select one article, this one, and get it through to completion? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:McClenon - Thank you for the advice and I will make your recommended suggestions to the article! For future articles to edit do you suggest picking at random or just monitor the teahouse? In the past (2009-2012) I created 1/2 a dozen articles; however, they were all posted from my IP and never as an established a user. I currently have another 3 drafts on additional health/med tech companies that have helped me with certain issues, but it seems like new submissions are frowned upon since the editing is backlogged? Thank you for the open line of communication and please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cofeebk23 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to bug you, but did you actually click through any of the links before you judged that the Winsor McCay dispute was a "content dispute"? I've seen many a serious issue at ANI derailed by such offhand remarks. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Curly Turkey - A question about what to list as someone's date of birth is a content dispute. As I said, it is a content dispute complicated by conduct issues. If a "serious issue at ANI" gets "derailed" by resolution of the content issue, maybe it need derailing, or maybe a reasonable effort needed to be made to resolve it by content dispute means before concluding that topic-bans or blocks or bans were necessary. I've seen many a content dispute derailed by premature reports to ANI. What efforts were made to resolve the date of birth issue as a content issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A question about what to list as someone's date of birth is a content dispute."—*eyeroll*—In other words, you didn't click through any of the links and commented without having any idea what the dispute was about. From your comment here, you don't appear even to have read what has been posted at ANI. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:CurlyTurkey - I did read the discussion. I saw that the discussion was uncivil on both sides, and that it would benefit from content resolution. I just happen to know that most conduct issues at ANI are inconclusive, and do not always result in administrative action, and often just result in more heat than light. If ugly behavior on the part of both editors (and you were uncivil) is going to be archived, it is better to take a chance on getting the underlying content dispute resolved than on just allowing a further airing of the conduct issues to no final result. If the artist had been of Polish or Serbian or Pakistani origin, that would be different, because there is a quicker conduct forum then. ANI is a lousy forum for resolving anything that isn't blatant, and it is better to try to resolve mixed content and conduct disputes as content and make the conduct issues fade into the background. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no "underlying content dispute". Thank you for having derailed the discussion. We'll inevitably be back. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert - Thank you for your guidance on the Raging Fire (band) article. I'm responding to your latest comment. The answer is yes, the version in draft space now is complete and is the updated one. It includes new citations (19 total, I believe), which I hope will make a better case for this band's notability. Thanks again for your help. ScrivenerBartleby (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

My article keeps being declined. 3 different people have now told me 10 different things to do with my article. I have added reliable references such as my BBC Artist Profile, my musicbrainz profile and links to songs that i am featured on in iTunes, Spotify & Tidal. How are these links not reliable. Clearly they are as I am looking at other artist Wikipedia pages with YouTube links added but your telling me I can't add them type of links. 3 different people have declined my page now telling me 20 different things. What's the problem ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krxnic (talk • contribs) 14:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• SciFiColdstreamer (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andrew Ranson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! My latest edit was refused because it lacks a reliable reference. Wasn't sure about that when I wrote it, but the article is about myself. I can try to find references (I have been in the public eye), but these are going to be in German! Would that be OK? I'm a total newbie and still reading up on the how's of Wikipedia. Well at least I'm a regular sponsor too ;-) Best regards

Andrew (Ranson)

SciFiColdstreamer (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SciFiColdstreamer - Read the autobiography guideline. The use of Wikipedia for autobiographies is discouraged. References in foreign languages are permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert -- in response to your suggestion re: COI declaration for Draft:CouponSherpa, I added a COI statement to the Kinoli15 talk page. Kinoli15 (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Expulsion of Cham Albanians, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

• Csupord (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Robert, I edited the page according to your suggestions External links were eliminated, 3 additional independent references were added. I hope that the page in its present form meets the requirements. Best regards, Dezső

Hello Robert, Thanks for the advice on the lede paragraph of my article. I have made edits that eliminated the peacock language and added factual language. Are you able to review the article yourself and move it to the live space? If so, do I need to press the blue "Resubmit" button beforehand? Thanks again. Downtheroad35 —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Downtheroad35 - First, you do need to press the blue Resubmit button. Second, while the article has been improved, I am not ready to accept it and move it into article space without thought and discussion. I have notability concerns and tone concerns about the draft. I also have a question. Do you have a connection with the vendor of Juice Beauty? It is the only article that you have edited. If so, please read the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made edits to the History and Endorsements section on Draft:Juice Beauty to reduce material that may seem promotional and make the tone sound more neutral. I am involved with Juice Beauty. I have added note of that to my user page. I have made edits to another page today and will continue to do so today and moving forward. I have read the Conflict of Interest policy. I am open to discussing notability and tone concerns about the draft. Thank you for advising me. Downtheroad35 —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Edhigue (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bioneer Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The information provided about the company is factual and can be verified on the link provided. May I ask how it sounds like advertising?....edhigue

In the most current version of the draft, which was resubmitted, the references were all deleted, and I had to decline it again as having no references. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a connection with Bioneer Corporation? It is the only article that you have edited. Please read the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Tomstuartsanderson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Chateau de la Trousse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert. Thanks for your comments. I've added some additional source material, but I'm not sure the best way to organise it - see citations at the bottom the page. Can you help me tidy it up? Many thanks. Tom.

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kudpung - Thank you. I have cast my !vote. It looks reasonable to me. (I know that I would be grandfathered. When we observed the teenager's birthday, I have been grandfathered for 14 years, which is longer than there has been Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought my opinion at the Survey was a long post, but I see that other editors post even a lot more. Is that what you had in mind with the survey? Debresser (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Debresser - The editors who support removal of the connection are short and to the point. The editors who support retention of the Middle Eastern connection are filibustering, but their arguments are not persuasive, or actually go the other way. It seems to be going all right at this point. If there is disruption of the Survey, report it to WP:ANI. (Since we are in agreement that not all Jews are Israelis, disruption doesn't go to Arbitration Enforcement.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody is breaking any rules, and I am always for any process that establishes consensus. I just wanted to alert you and see if you didn't want to add a note to keep posts short. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Darreg (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Caroline Sam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Mr Robert. Thanks for reviewing my articles in less than 30 minutes from the time I submitted it. One of the reasons why I don't like submitting articles to AFC is because the last time I did, it took more than two weeks yet it wasn't reviewed, and I am not really a patient type, I guess all that is in the past now with you on board. People think AFC are for new editors (or COI constraint ones), I beg to differ, I am not new on Wikipedia, but I think I will learn some things by submitting controversial articles to AFC occasionally. It is an utility that can make older editors become more experienced editors. It also exposes your article to different perspectives. I should have replied earlier but was working on another article.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by I should show that she is notable..., I thought that was already clarified by the references in the article. Well, to buttress more on that I strongly believe that they both pass the general notability guideline. There is significant independent reliable coverage evident in the article that discusses the entertainers in sufficient detail. Believe me it isn't easy to be that covered by so many references, radio stations, etc. as a third world entertainer with very little internet penetration. Maheeda and Cossy has a huge cult following in Nigeria. They are seen as cultural icons for pioneering anti-conservatism in Nigerian entertainment industry, however they are not notable (wikipedia definition) for their artistry.

Concerning the tune of my sentences, can you pick out some sentences that you aren't comfortable with so I can work on them? I know you already provided useful hyperlinks in your previous reply but am sorry I never click on links in automated replies especially when I have read them before. Darreg (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Saphil (talk · contribs)
  • User:Saphil/Wolf Halton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do you think the goal of an encyclopedia entry for a living author is a fools errand, particularly if the author is one's self?

The article is intended to aid people looking for a particular sort of technical knowledge by presenting my expertise and publications. I was nowhere near that mark when I requested editing help. I appreciate the quick and direct feedback, and now understand that the article should be a little more toward the first draft before requesting anyone's time for editing. There is much more content by this author than about him, so I started with the only third-person article I could think of that fit that description. If only I had a obituary entry, or even a wheelbarrow to draw from! Saphil (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saphil (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Saphil - I wouldn't use the term 'fool's errand' for the goal of an encyclopedia entry for oneself, but I wouldn't disagree. (I wouldn't use the term because it could be seen as violating the civility policy as insulting, but you used it, I didn't.) See the autobiography guideline. In your case, in particular, your article not only was about yourself, if you are Wolf Halton, but was an effort to advertise your business, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not the place to use to publicize yourself or to write about yourself. If you have any further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Could you please nominate the article "Democracy camp" for deletion? Because it is a duplicate of "Anti-establishment camp", and zh:香港民主派 is also nominated for deletion, due to being a repeat of zh:非建制陣營. 203.160.68.27 (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have instead requested that they be merged. What is requested in the Chinese Wikipedia is not important. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey just wanted to let you know, I have fixed the reference error as you have suggested. Vagbhata2 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Jgcab (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:University of Calgary Faculty of Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The contested lines about Campus Culture were removed. The article can not be merged with the page University of Calgary because the content is separate from the broader University. Most of the University of Calgary Faculties and Schools have their own independent pages (e.g. Faculty of Law, Cummings School of Medicine, Haskayne School of Business, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine), yet most of them are not as long as the draft that was submitted. I have seen other pages such as University of Alberta Faculty of Arts and McGill University Faculty of Arts, both of which contain less information and content than the page that the University of Calgary Faculty of Arts that was previously rejected. Yet somehow they were deemed worthy to be included in the encyclopaedia. Please explain why University of Calgary Faculty of Arts was deemed to not have sufficient content, yet the aforementioned articles of University faculties were approved.

Thank you Robert McClenon for the review. I will edit and resubmit. For clarification, do I need to use more varied sources that are not by authors of the concept? G.M.George (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:G.M.George - Yes. That is what you need. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Si467 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:James Calder (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert - thanks for your patience! I am sure that we have removed all external links. This latest draft from me (Si467) is the one for publication and any others may be deleted - sorry if there is still a duplicate out there but I cannot find it! Si

• W&WXRayLib (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Garvey (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Robert

Thank you again for reviewing the article on John Garvey last month.

This is the first time I have written an article for Wikipedia and I don't know if I am supposed to notify you when I have corrected the errors you cited. If this is pestering rather than procedure, please forgive me.

Thanks,

W&WXRayLib

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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)) 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. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. Thank you for reviewing my article, however you rejected it citing: "Do not use Wikipedia as a reference." I was very careful to provide detailed external references throughout the text and I linked to other Wikipedia articles where there is a related subject. Can you please be more specific as to where I have used Wikipedia as a reference.

JamieHanlon (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a third review, I see that you did not use Wikipedia as a reference, but the way that you composed the references causes them to display Wikipedia and they look like references to Wikipedia, when they are actually references to references. Please read referencing for beginners and referencing again, and format the references so that they display in the list of references. If you need help, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again Robert. You are right that I have presented my citations as references to references. This is because I use sources multiple times with different sections and chapters etc. This approach is documented Wikipedia style: see Section 6 in referencing for beginners and Section 3.1.8 in Citing sources and the article Franz Kafka as an example. If you still believe this to be the wrong approach, perhaps you could suggest an alternative. Thanks - JamieHanlon (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For my own information, the draft in question is Draft:C104. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. Since I have still not heard anything from you about the article I have resubmitted it for review. JamieHanlon (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, I have cleaned the "category" lines and put them in English. Hope everything seems good. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorz (talk • contribs) 08:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you have cleaned up the categories. My other comment was that the draft needed copy-editing after translation from French. The English reads like it was translated from another language. In particular, the tenses of the verbs are awkward, and there are other issues. Also, many of the references do not appear to be independent, such as Amazon links (which sell his books) and Google links on his books. If you want more advice, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok I corrected the english, and about the "non independent" references as Amazon I am about to suppress them, there is no need to see the covers after all. Tell me please if collecting photocopies of the numeros reviews about the author would be of some help, or if I should drastically simplify and give a basic description of his works. Tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorz (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saraiki is language. so the page Saraiki dialect be moved to Saraiki language.39.37.36.15 (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you have entered a move review of the decline of the previous move request. However, you don't make any arguments. Are you saying that the closer made an error, or that there are new arguments? I don't expect the decision against the move to be overturned without arguments. I also see that you have filed two Requests for Comments. I personally think that an RFC is a reasonable way to appear a Move Request, because it runs longer and may get a better consensus, but you filed two Requests for Comments without presenting solid arguments. I think that other editors will consider that to be disruptive. I suggest that you go to the Help Desk or the Teahouse and ask for advice on how to advance your cause constructively, rather than just making scattered arguments. That is my advice for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you identify any linguistic scholars who specifically categorize Saraiki as a language rather than a dialect? Remember that Wikipedia presents a neutral point of view summarizing what reliable sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Design Archivist (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Paul Clark (designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Removal of copyvio tag Hello, The submission for Paul Clark (designer) has been declined as it says copyvio tag not removed. I am unaware of how to remove this and would appreciate assistance. It may appear that text has been cut and pasted from the archives hub page still, however, groups of words that are still there are names of institutions and the like such as royal college of art.

Design Archivist (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tag was put on by User:Woodstop45. (Often the tag is put on by a bot, but in this case it was tagged by a human editor.) I have requested User:Woodstop45 on their talk page to take another look at the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, thank you for your help with this. I understand that that Woodstop45 has reported that the copyvio is now gone and the tag can be removed. Design Archivist

Hi Robert, Our submission has recently been declined again on the grounds that it reads like an advertisement. I contacted Shadowowl the reviewer via their talk page for some advice and clarification, however all the talk has been deleted from their page now and we didn't receive a response. I wanted to find out which language they found objectionable. We are a non-profit, educational archive with nothing to sell for ourselves or on behalf of Paul Clark. Only one of the 18 references is originated from us. So we are confused as to why it has been declined. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as while little-known, we believe the subject to be worthy of a Wikipedia page. Many thanks. Design Archivist

User:Design Archivist - First, who is "we"? There is a rule in Wikipedia of one editor, one account. This rule applies to non-profits as well as to profit-oriented businesses. I would like an explanation of why the subject is deserving of a Wikipedia page if they are little-known. Wikipedia is not the means to publicize hitherto little-known worthy people or causes. If you want to discuss further, I can ask the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Be prepared to answer who is "we". Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your advice Robert. This account is managed by one person - Design Archivist, who is a member of a digitisation team in an archive. Pages and edits are created after team discussion to ensure they are appropriate, hence the ‘we’. Working in education, it is has become more apparent that students use Wikipedia more and more as a research tool and it is not the intention to ‘publicize’ this particular designer, but to create a starting point from which research can be made and other insights and research added to, from the wider Wikipedia community. Perhaps I should not have used the phrase ‘little-known’ as lots of people on Wikipedia are little known, especially musicians. I meant rather that he is not a household name. He does have a cult following as he was important in the 1960s, and was one of the ‘Young Meteors’ described by Jonathan Aitken (who has a Wikipedia page) in the book of the same name. Design Archivist

Hi Robert, thanks for your comments on Draft:Architectural decision. All external links have been moved from the article body to references, as requested. Looking forwward to your re-review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.42.97 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Robert I am Daniela and I've created a page on Wikipedia about a business person named Raj Shetty [1]. Thank you for reviewing it. Since your last review, I've made lots of changes. It would be great if you could have a look at them these days and leave me some feedback. I would like to make sure that everything is right according to Wikipedia rules. Thank you! Miha dani (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miha dani (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Miha dani - I will be asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm Sorry Robert That I Said the same thing But I Will quit Wikipedia and say goodbye. 68.102.57.28 (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 83.185.95.160 (talk · contribs)
  • User:1BigSwede/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Someone wrote: "I'm still not quite sure why I'm doing this or how this has to do with editing content, but here it is." That was not an encyclopedic draft, but a test edit. Then it was submitted to AFC for review, and I declined it. That wastes the time of the reviewers. If you have a question, ask at the Teahouse. If you wrote it, and are now asking me, log in before asking question. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we permitted to list all of our sources in the Survey?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)onsReply[reply]

Which Survey for what RFC? In general listing sources is not what a Survey is for, because it is for stating opinions with brief persuasive statements as to reason. It would probably be better to list the sources in the discussion. Which Survey for what RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I see that you approved a draft of Eleanor Silliman Belknap Humphrey through AfC. I don't see how the subject is notable. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Chris troutman - First, that was more than six months ago. However, second, I think that the article will survive an AFD, and that is the basic question. If you think that it won't survive an AFD, you know how to do one. I don't mean to be abrupt, but I don't always remember exactly what I was thinking about a particular article six months ago, other than that I still think it will survive AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, It's now been three weeks since we created the NPP Work Group and we are hoping for a dynamic push forward for the urgent updates and required improvements to the quality control of new pages.

We now have the attention of the WMF and their development team has made page patrolling a top priority. They are already working hard to address some of the major issues.

The success of this depends on our team being able to keep the developers supplied with the feedback they need - if we relax on this they will move on.

If you have not already done so, please complete your list of 10 preferences here as soon as possible from the list at To do - the WMF is waiting for our shortlist. Please note that No.8 (NOINDEX) has already been addressed.

Thanks for all your help. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made two edits today to Category talk:People of Jewish descent which I know as an experienced editor are necessary improvements, but are also refractions of another editor's comment. Please review my edits.[2][3] Also, it seems to me everybody posted their opinion, and they are just fine-tuning it a bit here and there. Perhaps an uninvolved editor could start reviewing the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just now saw that this was the same editor who posted here on your talkpage in User_talk:Robert_McClenon#A_quick_question, and did not as you recommended. Debresser (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't know if this note is going through properly. RE: Page on ISLAND PROSPERITY FOUNDATION. Robert, I am aware of the tremendous backlog and thank you for your prompt attention to our page development. Further editing requires Board approval. Since our members are at the highest levels of international organizations their time is at a premium, and hence resolving this will require some time. As much of what the Foundation presents is ineffable, it is difficult to state in terms other than as already presented exactly what it is the Foundation does. It presents a new paradigm and new frontiers in knowledge development. It is noteworthy because no other Foundation or NGO operates in this manner. Thank you again for your attention and assistance. Best regards, Jeff. JEFFLOYNES (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:JEFFLOYNES - I have just read your note, since it was on the wrong part of my talk page. However, your statement that "Further editing requires Board approval" is deeply troubling. If the draft article is meant to be an official statement by your Board, I cannot even consider reviewing it further. Corporate editing is contrary to the philosophy of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Jarnek73 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rise FM Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert,

I made a few changes to the article and hope it can pass a review now. If you have any tips, please let me know.

Thanks!

Jarnek73 (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be asking other editors to comment at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reneeesq (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Renee Marie Smith, Esq. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can you please let me know why the references for my article were considered not to be in-depth, independent coverage? I would like to know what kind of references would be acceptable for a Wikipedia article. I have referred to your definition of notable sources, but if you could please kindly explain why my two references are not considered qualifying references, I would appreciate it. Is it that I only have two of them or is there something wrong with the two that I have? If so, what is wrong with them? Thank you. User:Reneeesq - I don't really intend to give you a lot of advice about how to improve your autobiography. Read the conflict of interest guideline. However, if you want comments, you can request them at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscribe or unsubscribe on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?

Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.

Recent changes

• You can now set text as small or big.[4]
• Invisible templates have been shown as a puzzle icon. Now, the name of the invisible template is displayed next to the puzzle icon.[5] A similar feature will display the first part of hidden HTML comments.[6]
• Categories are displayed at the bottom of each page. If you click on the categories, the dialog for editing categories will open.[7]
• At many wikis, you can now add maps to pages. Go to the Insert menu and choose the "Maps" item. The Discovery department are adding more features to this area, like geoshapes. You can read more on MediaWiki.org.[8]
• The "Save" button now says "Save page" when you create a page, and "Save changes" when you change an existing page.[9] In the future, the "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
• Image galleries now use a visual mode for editing. You can see thumbnails of the images, add new files, remove unwanted images, rearrange the images by dragging and dropping, and add captions for each image. Use the "Options" tab to set the gallery's display mode, image sizes, and add a title for the gallery.[10]

Future changes

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining 10 "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next month. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including Thai, Burmese and Aramaic.

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. The 2017 wikitext editor will look like the visual editor and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices in October 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together

Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for guidance... Yavarai (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello

You reviewed my Transaviabaltika draft article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Transaviabaltika) , which was the first article I'd tried to submit. Could I hassle you with what I'm sure is a noob question? You've suggested the article isn't notable, and to add sources of references. However although there are lots of sources of references for the airline that could be added, none of them would add anything to the essential facts of the article (Airline. Exists. Has planes. Flies them between certain places. Is under contract.)

Adding references to an article to show it's notable wouldn't improve the article in itself (other than in order to persuade an editor it's notable so it could appear). It could just make it less readable and more fussy, and the article itself would tidy a lot of orphan links in all the related articles. Could you point me in the direction of guidance on how to resolve this conflict?

Thanks! Barrybounce (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be asking for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Evolvingscience (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jillian Garvey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Robert - Thankyou very much for your review. I have removed the external links from the article body and included them in an "External Links" section. If you think this is not necessary, I can remove this. I have kept the "Media coverage" with external links as these show video clips explaining the research conducted by the scientist profiled. The Wikipedia page for the Australian Research Council (ARC) has external links within the article (I was not the author!). Thankyou again. Regards Evolvingscience (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

I'm a bit confused about the WP:DRN process. You said "Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion or respond to the other editor here." Does this mean I should not respond to Kautilya3's first statement in my first statement? But in his first statement he makes specific allegations against my edits that either misleading or untrue. So should I just ignore what he has written at DRN? VR _talk 03:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Do not respond to his statements. Just state what you think the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, you mentioned that both editors should refrain from editing the article. Does that refer to any edits to the article or only the edits regarding the disputed content?VR _talk 20:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant to avoid editing the article, because any part of the article could be some of the disputed content. Truly minor edits are okay, but see the minor edit guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Geoffkershner (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Peter Matthew Harper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert - I submitted the article for re-review, hopefully removing all the "peacock" language as per your recommendation and tried to make sure everything was factual and referenced. I want to make sure the article is completely unbiased, if you have any more suggestions I would really appreciate it.

Thank you. As my edit notice says, I will not necessarily follow your draft through the approval process (and usually won't). If you have more questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Ref. fixed. Thanks in advance.
Aizen V Anomander | talk 18:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. As my edit notice says, I will not normally follow your draft through the approval process. If you have any questions, you may ask them at the Teahouse or (since you are not a first-time editor) the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It's published. Now I can work on improving it, I guess. I do have a question though. I uploaded an image (cover art for toll the hounds) back when I first started working on the article and it was deleted. Could you provide me with a link to an existing cover for the book (or at least where I can find it in the gallery)? Or should I upload it again?

Aizen V Anomander|talk 19:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it was deleted, it most likely was deleted because of copyright issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:N Gasieta - I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. It was deleted because of a complex copyright matter known as non-free content, and I don't think that I can give you proper advice about that. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the help. I re-read why the file was deleted -- Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days -- and since the article has been created I re-uploaded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N Gasieta (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but having read the reasons for non-free images, I am still not sure whether the copyrighted cover has a valid non-free content usage. I don't claim to have any particular knowledge in that area. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:N Gasieta - I see that you had the cover image uploaded. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. If there's a problem with it, I guess we'll get a notification or something, but seeing as it's under fair use, and only being used for one article, I don't think there will be any. Do you?

N. GASIETA|talk 00:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dicksamson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Agent Review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Robert, on 29 September 2016, you reviewed this article in my sandbox and rejected it for reading "more like an advertisement" and needing more references to independent, reliable published sources. I have made several fixes to address these issues, and followed the "Be Bold" process to publish the article in Wikipedia.... Is the article OK as modified? If not, I'll be glad to make more changes. If it is OK, how soon could the WARNING notice be removed? I hope this message gets to you OK... Many thanks! Dick Samson

User:Dicksamson - I am not entirely sure why you are asking me anything or what you are asking me. After choosing to use the Articles for Creation process, you then decided instead to publish the article directly in article space in Wikipedia, which is your privilege. If you had wanted my opinion, you could have waited, but you were not required to wait for me to review it. So now, after publishing it anyway, why are you asking me for my opinion on whether you should have published it? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Dicksamson - I see that, after you published the article directly in article space, it was tagged for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising and then deleted. It appears that maybe you should realize that you are not an impartial judge of whether an article is unambiguous advertising, and should continue to rely on the Articles for Creation process for review after all. As my edit notice says, I do not normally follow a draft all the way through the review process. If you want another review, you may request one at the Teahouse, although there is no guarantee that you will get one there. What is your connection to Agent Review and LTC Financial Partners? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Robert. Chalk it up to inexperience. I did not, until now, realize there were two formal processes; just read online that W. invited "going bold." Seems that was a mistake. Sorry! Articles for Creation process seems to be what I need. I've made extensive changes to the document in my sandbox. I'll click to resubmit after finishing this message.... I supply free-lance PR services to Agent Review and ACSIA Partners (formerly LTC Financial Partners). Do I need to spell that out somewhere? I believe I can supply factual, non-biased information despite my connection (in fact, I know the facts better than other contributors might). The copy is not intended to be advertising, and I'd be glad to cut or revise as necessary. Many thanks for your guidance. Dick Dicksamson (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Dicksamson - Read the conflict of interest guideline and the paid editing disclosure and make the proper disclosures. I don't plan to advise paid editors as to what to trim out to make a draft neutral. Maybe someone else may be more cooperative. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Mr RD (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Judy Travis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I created this draft from an entirely new point and it is different from the old page which was deleted through AFD. Judy is a notable YouTube personality like others (Jenna Marbles, Michelle Phan and Philip DeFranco). She has been covered by many news websites which I have already mentioned in the draft. Please let me know how I can improve upon this article and any specific issues that you think are with this draft? I'll be highly thankful to you. Mr RD 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Mr RD - I see that you took part in the deletion debate. Since you now say that the draft that you have written is substantially different from the deleted version, I will leave you with the responsibility of temporarily having the deleted version undeleted to permit a comparison by a reviewer of the two versions. Go to Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Jbrunoii (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:D-Metal Stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The relevance of the article seems to be questioned. D-Metal Stars This band has released METAL DISNEY on Walt Disney Records This project is a Top seller on Amazon Japan Children's chart shown here - https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/bestsellers/music/578074/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_m_1_3_last

as well as a Top seller in the Amazon Japan Hard Rock & Metal chart shown here - https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/bestsellers/music/569298/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_m_2_2_last

It also includes Rudy Sarzo (legendary bassist who's credits include Ozzy Osbourne, Whitesnake, Quiet Riot, just to name a few) Please review, and look at references

User:Jbrunoii - I am replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• PaulTapper (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:NUGEN Audio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Robert

Thank you for your quick review of the draft article "NUGEN Audio".

I do have a COI for that article (which I have declared on my User page), but I have tried my very best to write it in a neutral way, and have added numerous independent, reliable, published sources.

Please could you suggest what I could do to improve the article sufficiently to have it approved?

Thanks

PaulTapper (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks Robert PaulTapper

Hi Robert. You should remove the request from 3O before giving a third opinion. That way we won't be duplicating our efforts. --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:RegentsPark - I respectfully disagree. I only remove the request after I have given an opinion. First, often all that is clear is a long back-and-forth, and I can't give an opinion. Second, if two third opinions are given, no harm is done. Although there are occasional edit conflicts, they are rare. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a big deal. But note that the instructions explicitly state When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. --regentspark (comment) 17:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm. Okay. In that case, maybe I should restore half of them after saying I need clarification of the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert, sorry for not getting back to you right away. I corrected and resubmitted the Jasmin Singer post as soon as I saw your message. Thanks again, and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TucsonVegan (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:TucsonVegan - I will not necessarily follow your submission through the approval process. You may want to ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert, I thank you for your comments about the article Draft: Yana Zhdanova. I made the changes you suggested, in a more formal tone, although the article was already written without any peacock, promoting terms at all. Moreover, the sources are published, reliable, and independent (The New York Times, The Telegraph, Le Monde, Euronews, Newsweek, The Guardian, Time Magazine etc) quoting Femen group opinions even if these magazines, newspapers, the author or the reader of this article do not agree with these opinions. I look forward to hearing from you about the new submission. Best regards, Patrice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.21.155 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert, I noticed you closed a dispute resolution request on Ivo Andric, asking us to reach a consensus on the talk page first. Honestly, I do not see the point of reaching a consensus as long as there is no content dispute. The opposing editor believes that adding a well-sourced content about the ultra-nationalistic views of Ivo Andric could potentially "defame" the biography, which is (apologize for my french) nonsense. The aim of a biography is not to "fame" a person by hiding well-sourced facts on his nationalistic acts. I understand Wikipedia might emphasize consensus, but there are situations where putting sources to consensus (a.k.a. arbitrary voting) is actually hurting the very-same purpose why an encyclopedia exists (meaning every minority can impose its voice through sources, not through majority consensuses (a.k.a. arbitrary voting)). As such, I find your system unproductive and time-consuming for outsiders with scarce time budgets.31.18.254.94 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It isn't clear what you expect me to do. If you aren't willing to discuss on an article talk page, then there is nothing to be gained by moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you believe that discussion in general is unproductive, then Wikipedia may not be for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the position of the opposing side was rigid, further discussion on the talk page would be counterproductive. I expected a dispute resolution would engage someone to have a brief look at the core of the dispute. Going to the talk page would lead to an infinite loop of repetitive positions with the very same editor(s), only to hope some external editor will jump onto the "dog-fight". But if your resolution duties are to always impose a discussion at the talk page, then I respect your decision and I am giving up. Thanks for your time. 31.18.254.94 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rangleme (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Randy Angle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've removed several sections and put many more citations on the remaining sections.

User:Rangleme - Read the autobiography guideline, which discourages writing about yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello dear Robert McClenon, I wanted to thank you for your advises and efforts to settle the notorious OR/SYNTH dispute in ways other than Arbitration Enforcement. I admit I was unsure what to do myself on this. After finding out more about what exactly the AE is, and how it should be used only as a last resort, I was reluctant to post the formatted AE report. But even after cancelling the AE report, new disruptions on Expulsion of Cham Albanians resumed by them and this is the reason I needed your advises once more and asked for your help. I appreciated your proposal for a new Mediation, even when I myself was not enthusiast to dive myself from one mediation straight to another. However, it seems that even the new Mediation under Anthony Appleyard failed, due to DevilWearsBrioni's fault and I doubt any further mediations can make the difference anymore. The dispute has been dragging its feet onto 5 different platforms which is way too much for most sane editors here. I believe now that there is only one thing that can be done now - impose topic sanctions (perma-block or perma-ban or how it is called?)

However the reason I am leaving you a message here in your talk, is because I forgot to thank you properly for all the interest and patience you have showed to the case, and to let you know that I am very grateful. Also I want to apologize for any implications in the past about you being not-so-neutral party to the dispute. Please, will you accept my apology? I had no ill intentions against you when I questioned your neutrality and was more about my stress and exhaustion generated by this prolonged dispute finding their way out. I am very grateful for your help. When this is over, I will secede temporarily from Wikipedia, to rest a bit. If there is anything I can do and help, please do not hesitate to ask. And have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SilentResident - No apology required, but offered apology accepted anyway, and thanks accepted. We will see what the next steps are, but I think that you and I have both said a topic-ban appears to be in order. Although the thread is now at ANI rather than at AE, any administrator at ANI can impose AE sanctions at this time, because DWB was properly notified. Also, having to be called out by a mediator is unusual; most editors will heed the caution of a mediator to stay on topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "having to be called out by a mediator is unusual; most editors will heed the caution of a mediator to stay on topic" can be rephrased and compressed into a mere single word: stubborness, I think. :-) Just a unusual case of stubborness.

May I ask something? I am realizing (thanks to reading now your latest ANI comment), that a block and a ban are two different things with two different meanings? So, they are not one and the same thing? I am worried now, because in the ANI, when I proposed "to be blocked", I meant a permanent sanction, not something temporary, if this is the case... -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In all case and to avoid causing confusion to others, I have edited and re-worded my comment on ANI to clarify things out. In meantime I found what the differences between ban and block are. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Badol1234 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Badol1234/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SABNAM_PERVIN(ACTRESS)

UserBadol1234 - What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your sandbox contains a hidden title of your daft on Sabnam Pervin. It doesn't display the draft on Sabnam Pervin. I will review the draft in a few minutes. However, your sandbox is not the draft, only an incorrectly formatted pointer to the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft has not been submitted for review. If it is submitted, it isn't ready for acceptance. First, the title should be put in title case rather than in UPPER CASE. That is a minor matter. Second, it is inadequately sourced. It has no footnotes, and only has two references, one of which is YouTube, which is not a reliable source, and one of which is not in English. While foreign sources are permitted, English sources are better. Third, nearly all of the names of other people are in redlinks. This is distracting. Most of the redlinks should either be removed, or made into blue links by supplying articles on the people, or made into blue links by correcting the spelling of the names, or whatever. In any case, it has too many redlinks. Do you want the sandbox made into a redirect? Do you want the draft submitted? You need to work on the draft as I have mentioned. If you have further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Que_Peller

HellonRobert , I have made the suggested reference and orphan link updates, could you please remove the article Que Peller from the speedy deletion request. Thank you.Ibrahim skillz (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ibrahim skillz - I didn't request speedy deletion of the article. I nominated the article for Articles for Deletion. Also, the orphan status of the article was not why I nominated it for deletion. I will let the 7-day deletion discussion run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Robynbrody (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aaron L. Brody (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have made the two changes requested. 1) the list of citations has been trimmed and 2) the two reference sections have been combined into one.

I will not necessarily follow your draft through to acceptance. If you want advice, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Gopengsgement (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Leo J Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Sir. You wrote in reason to reject: "Blogs are not reliable sources. Some of the sources are not independent. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)." Since there are quite a few citations of news articles and other media are you suggesting that blog citations be deleted entirely? Is a blog at a major newspaper by a professional journalist treated the same as a standalone blog by a hobbyist? I'd just like to know how to improve for my project now and in future classes or submissions. My professor thought this one was very good. Please help. I will add more non-blog citations.

User:Gopensgement - If you have any questions about the use of blogs as sources or other questions about sources, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saraiki dialect. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert I think the draft (Robert William Alexander: 1905 - 1979. Irish Novelist) you refer to is an old one. My understanding is that the current one (19 September) is awaiting review. Please can you confirm this is so? Many thanks Mary Maryromaine (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Maryromaine - First, please post to the bottom of my talk page, using the New Section feature, not to the top. Second, I will look at all of the drafts. Please try to avoid creating multiple copies of drafts, which confuses the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Maryromaine - The draft with the dates of 1905 and 1979 is the current one that you created on 19 September. What I was also referring to was a very old draft that I had tagged for deletion as abandoned. It has since been deleted because it was abandoned. I am moving your draft to Draft:Robert William Alexander. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Rfc template at Category talk:People of Jewish descent has been removed, and the discussion is in need of closing by an independent editor. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, thanks for your comment on References and quotations in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971 film)!

I considered adding it to the main page for the Willy Wonka film, but because it became so long and has so many citations I thought it worked better as a stand alone page. I would prefer to keep it that way, but if it means having it approved or not, I'm okay to move it. I'm unclear as to whether your suggestion was just a suggestion or an instruction. Look forward to hearing back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonkaNerd (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert, Thanks for your help on the Zack Heart page. I made the corrections you mentioned some time back but the page hasn't been published yet. Could you please advise? Kind regards, Sophie (Sophiechristianson (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

User:Sophiechristianson - The article is Draft:Nicholas Zackary Heart. I will not necessarily follow your draft through the approval process. Please wait for it to be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, User:Sophiechristianson, please use the New Section tab to post to the bottom of my talk page. Please do not post to the top. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)′Reply[reply]

Hi Robert,

Sorry for posting at the incorrect spot. Thanks for the update. We will wait for it to be reviewed. (Sophiechristianson (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

• Beauty111 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Angela Workman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was this declined when I have a long list of 'reliable sources' (ie, news publications)? Which are not reliable? These are all major entertainment publications. If you look at Wiki's own The Zookeeper's Wife (film) page, you'll see me there.  I've been writing professionally for over 20 years and have documented it in exactly the way I was requested to do. Beauty111 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Beauty111 - The draft has a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources and is inconsistently formatted. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. Blogspot is not considered a reliable source. The draft is ready for acceptance if the formatting of the references is made consistent and the unreliable sources are eliminated. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Because an article was accepted does not mean that another article should be accepted; maybe the article should be deleted. (I haven't checked the other article yet.) You say, "I ... have documented it in exactly the way I was requested to do so." By whom? Who requested that you write the draft? Please read the conflict of interest guideline. If you are being paid, you must make the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the paid editing disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• TvishA (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tvisha Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HI, My Article about Tvisha Technologies Pvt Ltd was declined mentioning that the content looks more like an advertisement. can you help me finding which Paragraph i need to edit, so that i can re-edit the content and submit for review. Thank you

TvishA (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon,

The future of NPP and AfC:

To take full advantage of the WMF developer time that has been allocated to this project, we must now quickly submit the short list of our priorities before the end of October, otherwise we may lose the attention of the WMF.

If you have not already done so, please visit the page at Suggested Improvements and select your personal choice of 10 features (excluding the ones the devs are already doing) and list them in your order of priority at Priorities.

Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 231Pacific (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tony D Triggs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My reference 3 lacks detail. To supply that detail I would need to spend a day travelling and researching. I'd be happy to do that if my article had been accepted (or accepted with the condition of supplying that one detail). Can an article be accepted where a final 'tweak' is still required?

User:231Pacific - I don't understand the significance of the question. Your submission, Draft:Tony D Triggs, was declined not because of any issue with the sources, but as being written in a non-neutral tone and having peacock language. You don't need to do research that involves traveling in order to revise the tone of a draft. Also, your statement that you are willing to spend a day travelling and researching if the article is accepted is interesting. Does that mean that you are being paid to get the article accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments, both now and earlier. I've made two adjustments to my draft to try and get rid of the sort of language you've disapproved. To answer your question, no one is paying or in any way rewarding me for working on this article. I simply feared that the incompleteness of one citation might perhaps be an impediment. As you say, you didn't raise objection on that particular score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 231Pacific (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert, my apologies for bothering you again for a second time in such a short period, but may I ask if is there more than what I know, in this DWB case? In fact, I have been only dealing with disruption caused by a registered editor, DevilWearsBrioni, which is manageable for me as I am able to tackle the disruption without any distractions or misdirections. But now I see some editors such as Athenean and others revealed that there too might have also been a case of canvassing [11]and possibly a case of sock-puppeting [12] as well? Now what does this means for the current AE report? I am unsure on whenever this is related to the current disruption, or if it means that the case extends beyond the current known (at least for me) records and dates? If can someone verify whenever there is more to this case, I could really appreciate anyone telling me about it, if possible, so I can know what exactly we are dealing there with. Because if there is indeed canvassing and the suspicions about the IP account belonging to him are proven, then this means he has already been banned for disruption in Balkan-related articles, which should not be ignored. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SilentResident - I respectfully disagree. On the one hand, it is a near-certainty that DevilWearsBrioni is the IP. However, the IP was not banned. The IP was blocked for 72 hours. A block is not a ban. I believe that this has been explained to you. I think that, unfortunately, Arbitration Enforcement, which is quicker and more effective than WP:ANI but is limited as to availability, is not applicable. I think that the AE case will have to be closed with a very strong warning, possibly that the next incident of disruption will not only result in a topic-ban, but in a long block also. Action is still available at WP:ANI, because the community can impose a topic-ban. That is my advice. I do not see sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oups, writing "banned", I meant "blocked", apologies for the confusion again. I guess the confusion isnt easy to go and may partly be caused by the difference between English and Greek languages. While in the English language there are two distinct terms, "Ban" and "Block", in the Greek there is only one term for both. It is "Apocleismos", and unfortunately it means both "Ban" and "Block". Yes, the thing here is, if the IP is really him, then, this means his disruptions on Balkan articles has started much earlier than January 2016, earlier than we originally thought, and it shows that this editor, already from the very beginning, had a very negative editorial presence (disruptions outweight contributions). Furthermore, the IP's record of sanctions, shows that even if his current registered account shows that he has a clean record of sanctions, this is not exactly true anymore and we are dealing with an editor who has been blocked in the past, again for disruption on Balkan related articles. But I understand what you are saying. OK I will wait and see. -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert, I checked the history log and I am afraid you are right. What you said about the formal ARBMAC warning being given a bit too late, is very true. It could have been given to him sooner. However, really do you believe a mere warning instead of sanctions going to work this time? To be honest, I am rather pessimistic. DevilWearsBrioni has made a new statement on AE right now, in which he has argued that if someone should be sanctioned, is not him for his disruptions, because, according to him always, the disruptions are just a fake narrative created by me, and that if someone should be banned/blocked in this case, is me and not him! His new arrogant statement on AE, combined with the lateness of the Alexikoua's formal ARBMAC warning to him just confirmed my worst expectations now: no sanctions and more disruptions are coming ahead on Balkan articles. And this right when I had my hopes that this whole nightmare could have been over soon. Terrible, Robert. Terrible. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, I am a student at Northwestern University and just added a page for the Waa-Mu Show. I noticed that you had declined a submission for a previous draft of the page because the references did not adequately show the subject's notability. My group added some more notable sources and would be so appreciative of your feedback and would like to collaborate with you on it. Thanks so much! Jgraifman (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)jgraifmanReply[reply]

The draft in question appears to be Draft: The Waa-Mu Show. It also appears that The Waa-Mu Show has been moved to mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Robert!

Thank you very much for the critique on my first article Draft: Streetlight Cadence. I revised my citations as per your advice and deleted all YouTube, Instagram, as well as other dubious sources and was wondering if I have to submit my draft again or just wait for a second review for approval or further suggestions? Thanks in advance! - Noedrokka —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Noedrokka - I did not decline your draft. It is still waiting for review. The review process is very backlogged, so please be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood. Thanks and have a great weekend! - Noedrokka —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Robert. You recently reviewed my case. My issue is not with the designation of whether something is allowed on Wikipedia or not - I am learning what is and what is not. The "undo" in question was due to the fact that I did not realize there was a talk page at first - so I did undo 2x until I realized there was a talk page. The editor in question keeps insulting me and telling me that my statements are "nationalistic nonsense" or that I should "kiss his shiny metal ass". Please let me know if this is acceptable behavior from your editors. And instead of taking the time to educate someone on the fact that certain kinds of things need to be published elsewhere first (the why is not relevant here), he is just removing things and turning a civil discussion into personal insults. If the editor is indeed allowed to swear at me - which I never did once - and that is expected behavior, I stand corrected. Thank you.

If you want him to remove it because it is not published elsewhere first, that's fine. If you want him to keep being offensive and telling people to "kiss his ass" with no one saying similar things to him in response to requesting an apology for the affront (not the deletion), that's your choice too.

The link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kleuske Edit to Bangladeshi Names

68.49.4.6 (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Quazi S IslamReply[reply]

User:Kleuske is not insulting you, but is telling you that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. It is not your questions that are nationalistic nonsense. It is the way you are wording them aggressively that are nationalistic nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:68.49.4.6 - The place to get an editor to apologize to you, regardless of whether there is a wrong, is WP:ANI. First read the boomerang essay. You are being rude and demanding to User:Kleuske and they are being rude back to you, but you started it. If you push any demand, when you started the personalizing, you are likely to find pages semi-protected. I have two suggestions. First, create an account. Second, calm down. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for explaining it to me in a different light. Guess the only way to preserve the unwritten history of Bangladesh or any other country is to create a site just for that. This is not the source encyclopedia that I thought it was - it is the online indexed copy of the existing encyclopedia of knowledge. A very useful distinction to understand. Thank you for the clarity. 68.49.4.6 (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Quazi S Islam.Reply[reply]

One other question that I need to understand. My name is Quazi S Islam. I am from the Quazi family. My family has a history of writing it both with a Q and a K. How do I document this disambiguation? I did find Kazi listed in the list of family names in page in question but I need to know how to include the disambiguation because I want to make sure it does not get removed for lack of documentation. I did ask the editor for that information but I was not given any direction. Do I need to include a picture of my Bangladesh passport or something? Thanks. 68.49.4.6 (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Quazi S IslamReply[reply]

Dear Robert, I thank you for your comments about the article Draft: Yana Zhdanova. The initial article was submitted on the first of September and read by you on 7 October. I made the changes you suggested, in a more formal tone, although the article was already written without any peacock, promoting terms at all. Moreover, the sources are published, reliable, and independent (The New York Times, The Telegraph, Le Monde, Euronews, Newsweek, The Guardian, Time Magazine etc) quoting Femen group opinions even if these magazines, newspapers, the author or the reader of this article do not agree with these opinions. The new submission was made on 7 October, and on 21 October I sent you a message on this Talk page, which remained without reply. If I am not mistaken, it's the only unanswered message here, apparently because of so many messages and articles you have to go through. I am aware of the fact that you will not necessarily be the person who will read the new submission, however, just in case you will, I want to point out that the tone of the new submission is more neutral, formal, encyclopedic, archival than many existing Wikipedia articles about Art, History and Politics.I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Patrice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.113.188 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have re-read the draft. I still do not think that it is written in a neutral formal tone. It is true that some other articles also are not, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to accept articles; it may be a reason to delete other articles. I agree that the sources are neutral and independent, but the language still is written from the standpoint of the movement. I will ask for the comments of other editors at the Teahouse. By the way, creating an account has several advantages and no disadvantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Robert, I appreciate! Two editors made some changes already, and I changed some more sentences myself. Thanks again, Patrice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRANC85 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Calder_(2) Hi Robert - many thanks and really sorry for any confusion. The original draft was set up by Matt and I have taken this over and removed the external links etc and hope it is now suitable for publication. I have asked Matt to delete the other draft from his folder so hopefully this one is now the only version (and also should now be in the correct format). I have also been through all the independent references to ensure that they are correct and up to date. Let me know if there is anything else I can do - apologies for the slow prgress but this is the first of a few which I hope to submit to Wiki for consideration and many thanks for your patience. Si Si467 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:James Calder (surgeon) is waiting for review. I do not normally follow an article all the way through to its approval, and will let someone else review it next. I have disambiguated it because there is already a James Calder. Unfortunately, the review process is very backlogged. Please be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Robert,

Thanks a lot for your comments on my draft page Djang San. I have edited the content as suggested. Do i need to re-submit my page for publication?

Thanks!

Xiaohei2016 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Xiaohei2016 - Is that Draft:Djang San? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I neither accepted nor declined the draft. It is still in review. Please be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Smritimiddha (talk · contribs)
  • User:Smritimiddha/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Can you help me with the entry on SHEROES you declined. It would be great if you could let me know which parts come across as promotional and not genuine, it would help me edit and make it better.

User:Smritimiddha - First, I am not the only editor who thought that the draft had problems. Second, I assume that you were only trying to inform other editors that the service exists. However, Wikipedia isn't here to inform other editors that something exists, only to inform other editors that something is notable and has been written about by third parties. You didn't provide any independent reliable sources. Third, the draft consisted mostly of external links to other articles. A Wikipedia article may contain links to other articles, but it shouldn't consist mostly of links to them. If you really don't understand why your draft was not suitable for Wikipedia, I think that you should ask other experienced editors for advice at the Teahouse. I may not be the best editor to explain what are and are not good additions to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fourth, are you working for SHEROES? If so, you must make a conflict of interest declaration. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Carrieruggieri (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Diana Fosha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Robert, You reviewed by submission for Draft: Diana Fosha. I wanted to respond to the comments on the talk page and also to explain each reference so that you can check that they are in fact independent sources. However, the entire conversation on the talk page is gone. I believe it was all on the talk page? Could you please direct me to where the conversation is? Thank you. Carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Carrieruggieri - The conversation was at the Teahouse. Most conversations at active talk pages (including help pages) are archived by bots. The conversation is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_536#on_declining_Draft:_Diana_Fosha_due_to_references.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, are you affiliated with either Fosha or her organization? If so, please make the conflict of interest disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should I address the issues here? Or, do I need to address the conflict of interest and references issues at the teahouse? Carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sorry but I can't edit from the teahouse archive and I can't find it 'live' where I can edit. Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning Conflict of Interest: I am a student of AEDP. I was not asked to write the AEDP wikipedia article, or the diana fosha biography. I am not paid by AEDP in any capacity. I wanted to write the article for wikipedia because it had not been written, and I wanted to challenge myself to write this in order to deepen my understanding of this model. I did not anticipate how difficult it would be and how long it would take (that explains the 400 edits and 3 or 4 submission declines). I wrote the diana fosha biography because once the aedp article was published, her name appeared with a red link, which notes that a biography can be written to complete the task. If you go to www.aedpinstitute.org and click on find a therapist, you will see that I am a 3rd level trained aedp therapist (not certified, not a supervisor, and not faculty, so I receive no renumeration from any involvement with my aedp training. carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding References: 1. is from page xvii: List of theories. this reference supports the statement that Diana Fosha is founder of AEDP. 3. is a published transcript of an interview with diana Fosha, with an introduction by the author David Van Nuys that supports the statements about her professional background. David Van Nuys is not affiliated with AEDP in any capacity. 4. is from the aedp institute website, but the reference is there to document the statements about the institute itself. 5. Is a published transcript of an interview with Diana fosha by Polly Ely. It supplies information about Diana fossa's education and training.Polly Ely has attended aedp workshops etc... but is not a member of AEDP institute. 6.Grotstein is a very important independent reference- He is a major figure in the field of psychoanalysis which is not in anyway associated with AEDP. Grotstein's review provides information about the impact AEDP has had on the entire field of psychotherapy. This is published in APA newsletter . I will attach the to the reference. 7. same as 6 - David Malan is entirely different modality of therapy and is very highly regarded. 9. is a review of book by an author, bessel van der kolk also unaffiliated with AEDP. 10. is link to APA website which published the DVD's of sessions in the APA's master therapist series.

If this should be in the teahouse, I will copy/paste it. But I need help to find where I can edit the teahouse 'live' page, not the archive. Carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long Comments on References

You have made long comments concerning the references to the draft. If the purpose of your comments is to get the draft accepted more or less in its current state, then the comments should be either on the draft talk page, Draft talk:Diana Fosha, or in the form of AFC comments in the article draft. If you want to discuss the draft at the Teahouse, you can click on any of the links in my talk page comments and they will take you to the live Teahouse. However, discussing the references at length really is only for the attention of a reviewer, and not as part of a general discussion, so put the long comments about the references either on the draft talk page or in AFC comments in the article draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Longer Reply to User:Carrieruggieri

User:Carrieruggieri – There is no one answer as to where and how you should address the comments. If you do not have a conflict of interest, you do not need to address it. Unfortunately, perhaps the majority of new Wikipedia editors do not come to Wikipedia in order to improve it, but for self-serving reasons, to get their own article approved, so I sometimes ask. You have answered. Most new editors either do not answer, or eventually admit to the conflict of interest.

Also unfortunately, many new editors, perhaps a majority of them who do want to improve Wikipedia, think that the best way to improve it is to write one new article. Writing a new article, complete with its references, is the most difficult task that there is in Wikipedia. New editors might do better to try to help us with the five million articles that we do have rather than with one of the articles that we do not have. However, there seems to be a widespread belief that the best way to help Wikipedia is to write one new article (or a few new articles). If you want to help Wikipedia, there are many ways that you can help, such as by editing the articles that we do have.

I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. The article on AEDP has been approved and is in article space, although it has tags for improvement. As to the draft on Fosha, you can discuss the draft either at WP:THQ or at the WikiProject Psychology talk page, or you can simply edit the draft and resubmit it. If you have any more questions, you can ask me here, or you can ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert, I made all the changes mentioned in your comments, as well in the hidden comments within the text concerning the article tone and the quote. Furthermore, I added a source (n°5) to justify Lukashenko's negative image, and deleted the word "corrupted" from the sentence "the corrupted policy of Yulia Tymoshenko". Thanks again. FRANC85 (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft is Draft: Yana Zhdanova. I do not normally follow a submission through the approval process. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, the page on Zack Heart was not accepted and it says it has been nominated for deletion... We are not clear why. You mentioned there are external links which are not allowed. I thought we were doing it correctly so I don't understand what needs to to be removed and what needs to be added? We will continue to work on it until it is correct so how do we stop it from being deleted? (Sophiechristianson (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

User:Sophiechristianson - First, who is "we"? If you are representing Zack Heart, or working for him, please read the conflict of interest guideline and the paid editing policy, and make any required disclosures. (I infer that you are sufficiently proficient in English to be familiar with the distinction between the first person singular and the first person plural.) Second, I did not nominate Draft:Nicholas Zackary Heart for deletion. I declined it for having external links. It does appear that its subject is notable and does qualify to be the subject of an article. I nominated User:Sophiechristianson for deletion as a article in user space. If you think that I nominated Draft:Zack Heart, which is Draft:Nicholas Zackary Heart, for deletion, maybe you have confused yourself by creating multiple copies of drafts. Just work on the one that is a valid draft, after answering who you are and who you are working for. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon Hi Robert, thanks for the prompt reply. It's just my sister and I, we aren't affiliated with Zack Heart or being paid by anyone. This is the first of hopefully many celebrity pages we are contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks for clarifying the deletion location as the user space. I will continue with the draft, remove the external links and resubmit. Thanks Robert (Sophiechristianson (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

User:Sophiechristianson - You shouldn't be sharing your account with your sister, because we have a rule of one person, one account, and she should create her own account, but that isn't worth making an issue about. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon Understood, will have her create her own page. Thanks Robert (Sophiechristianson (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Maybe try waiting a whopping half hour before jumping the gun. My edit to improve the article was blocked by your impatience. - BalthCat (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC) :In fact, I made the mistake of hitting back, which was an expired session, and forward again, LOSING MY EDIT. So now I have to do it all over again. THANKS. - BalthCat (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Whoops, mine's at the bottom. - BalthCat (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. You have declined to accept the page on John Robert Mills on the grounds of copyright infringement. I don't think there is any copyright infringement for the following reasons:

• John Robert Mills died in 1998. Shortly after his death an article was put together as the basis of an obituary and for publication in the Institute of Physics (IoP) magazine. The article was a combined effort between John Mills's two sons and a work colleague, Ken Slater. Ken Was a member of the IoP and as such, the article in the IoP was attributed to him. Ken slater has since died.
• John Mills's two sons are directors of CCC Trading Ltd (http://cayley.co.uk) and as such have re-published the article on their website
• The almost identical text has been used on all published material (Obituary, IoP article, Website and Wikipedia draft) because all have been written by the same team, albeit one has since died.
• There is, on the website (http://cayley.co.uk/john-robert-mills/), a permission statement at the bottom of the page that reads: "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In particular, CCC Trading Ltd gives permission for the use of text contained on this page to be used by Moonbouncer54 on the Wikipedia page relating to John Robert Mills. For verification please contact the site owner of CCC Trading Ltd (T/a Cayley Chemicals), Philip Mills by email: cayley@btinternet.com" This over-rides the footer copyright.
• So far as pictures are concerned, these are reproduced under the Open Govenment Licence V3 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/)

We are of course willing to make any changes necessary to satisfy your requirements to approve the Wikipedia article but would appreciate any advice as to what we should do. Or, in light of the above, may we re-submit for consideration without further modification. Thanks. Moonbouncer54 (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWelch (talk • contribs) 12:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Moonbouncer54 - I will be asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert,

Your comment, "Remove commentary from the body of the article" is unclear. Which commentary exactly are you referring to. We have attempted to make each statement in the article a concise unbiased factual representation of the SIMSOLID product. Please let us know where the wording goes off base and we will correct it.

Your other comment, "This still reads like an advertisement" is unclear as well. Every statement we have put in this page is a factual description of the product. There is no offer of sales nor claim of any feature not fundemental to the product description. Our view is that this is an unbiased decription of a technical software product. It would help if you can give me the specific sentences with the wrong tone along with a alternate form that works on Wikipedia so I can get this corrected.

I am just not clear what needs be adjusted.

Thanks and regards,

Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWelch (talk • contribs) 12:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:KenWelch - I will be asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon. Yesterday you declined my draft article "Draft:Order of Vaughan" stating that it only cited sources local to the area of York, Ontario. I have since added two citations that are not local to York (One is from London, Ontario and one from a national news source). I have resubmitted the article and it is awaiting re-review. Would these 2 new sources make the draft notable enough to become a real article? Thanks Jith12 (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Jith12 - You already asked this at the AFC Help Desk, and they appear to have said no. I will note that London, Ontario, is not far from York, Ontario. Please do not engage in forum shopping to try to get one reviewer not to notice that other reviewers have recommended another decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen you decline a few drafts as either having too many elinks, excessive italics, ALL CAPS, etc. Granted, this draft isn't acceptable in its current format, but if the only reason a submission is being declined is due to formatting, well, fix it and accept it; MOS violations are not valid reasons for declining a draft. Primefac (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. Per your comment about uploading an image of Theresia Gouw or deleting the headshot box... I uploaded a headshot image earlier and provided permission from Theresia Gouw, the copyright holder, as instructed. The image was subsequently deleted saying that there wasn't permission. I left a message and have received no response. Can you help me and suggest how I should proceed? I would like to use the image I originally uploaded but am not able to re-upload it. Any advice is much appreciated! Thanks Robert! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrosato (talk • contribs) 13:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Theresia Gouw. Robert McClenon (talk)

• Orfeolille (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Laraine Stephens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Concerning my draft of the article about actress Laraine Stephens,  I added a second reference to show the importance of the television and movie career of Laraine Stephens (the refererence is the IMDb) . She was one of the most leading actress of episodic television during almost three decades, with most of a billing as a guest star and sometimes a special guest star billing and she was a regular with a starring credit billing fo two series.

I hope you ll consider her eligible o have an article on Wikipedia. thnk you in advance . best regards .

Orfeolille (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For all your efforts at the Help Desk, Teahouse, AfC and elsewhere. TimothyJosephWood 19:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see when my input is no longer welcome or needed. Since DRN was the one thing I had left at Wikipedia, that wraps things up for me here. I wish you all the best with your future endeavours. Steven Crossin 22:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Inca12 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Inca12/Chala, Peru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article of Chala he mentioned refers to a geographical region in Peru, but the article I want to create refers to a town.

There are Wiki articles about him in French and in Italian. What else you guys need??? You are really becoming super picky. I miss the time when Wikipedia was a friendly place. Ericdec85 (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ericdec85 - Are his articles in French and Italian only one sentence, or do they describe his career? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ericdec85 Sure, WP is superpickier than it was X years ago, but that is part of why it´s still valuable (and still somewhat popular) for its readers. If you want the articles you create to stick on en-WP, you have to make sure they fulfill WP:GNG, and for some subjects, that´s hard to impossible. As the article currently stands, it gives me almost nothing as a reader. Why do we have an article on this "churchman"? Is he a Saint? Was he confessor to the king of Norway? Did he embezzle a lot of money? Show (and tell in the article) with reliable sources that he created the most awesome of all missals (well, something like that, but don´t WP:PROMO either) and the article might survive. Or an article of his missal might, if someone writes it. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use this St Andrew's missal on a weekly basis and I would love to know more about Dom Gaspar Lefebvre and where he comes from. Family, background, views, religion etc. Please publish on wiki. kind regards, Maree P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.156.176 (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Robert. Because you're someone I see quite frequently both at the Teahouse and when I'm looking into something over in draftspace, I figured I'd let you know about a change coming to user rights. Currently, almost anyone can mark a page as patrolled. However, within the next few days, that right will be removed from all but the new New Page Reviewer right. (New Page Reviewers were known as New Page Patrollers before the user right was created.) Editors who help out with AfC are extremely desirable as applicants for the user right, as they already know what to look for when patrolling pages. This also would allow them to patrol drafts they've moved into the mainspace instead of it showing up in the NPR queue for someone else to have to mark as patrolled later. If you're interested, you can apply for the right at WP:PERM/NPR. — Gestrid (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx for your help with this Robert - I haev made the changes and confirm that only draft 2 is needed (I cant work out how to delete the other one - sorry!)

This is the keep draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Calder_(2) Si — Preceding unsigned comment added by Si467 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've moved these comments from the top of this page into a section and removed the codebox from it. — Gestrid (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you accidentally my comment. TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timothyjosephwood - It appears to have been an undetected edit conflict or some similar accident. I restored your lost comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't sure if I had said something terribly out of place. No worries. TimothyJosephWood 23:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In re: to your comment about another source for this page - I added one from the Washington Post. Also, the image I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons was removed. Do you know how I can upload it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglaswintergreen (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert,

I recently submitted an article about social network analysis in the field of computer-supported collaborative learning, and it was rejected because there is already an article about social network analysis.

However, my intention was to create a page specifically regarding SNA within the field of CSCL in the same way that this article is specifically in relation to the field of criminology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis_(criminology)

Do you have any tips on how to specify that within the article editor, and whether this would improve the likelihood of my article being accepted?

Thanks so much! Emily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cscl group 3 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC) ;Reply[reply]

User:Cscl group 3 - First, I see that you have already located an article on Social network analysis (criminology). The Articles for Creation process is used to review drafts of articles on new topics, not replacements for existing articles. (A few editors do think that it should be available to be used for that purpose, but discussion on the article talk page is appropriate.) If you want to make improvements to an existing article, discuss on the article talk page. Second, why is your user name 'Cscl group 3'? Who is Cscl? Your username implies that it belongs to a group. I would suggest that you change your user name. If you have any questions either about draft articles or about usernames, you can ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mr. McClenon, thank you for your response on 29 October 2016 to my submission, 'Draft: David Breskin.'

I'm trying to edit the draft since learning it was declined so that it can be approved. I'm contacting you to find out exactly what you suggest I do. If I add sources for all facts that aren't yet sourced, is that your main concern?

I've since chatted online with Wiki online help volunteers, and they explained that even the subject's birth date and place, college attended, and other very basic facts need to be sourced. I am a first time editor so the learning curve is steep. I will pull sources for these basic facts, and try to substantiate any other facts that are not sourced.

As for the subject's website, I removed it since you expressed concern that the wiki was promoting his website. This is not the intent, and there is no for-profit content on his site. It's purely informational. I'd like to add his website address back in, but do it per Wiki's guidelines. I've seen that other subjects' websites are indeed included in Wiki entries. I hope you can advise me on how best to include the website URL. It is relevant, as anyone who is interested in this subject will want to access his writings and read about the music recordings he produced. Again, there is nothing for sale on the site.

Thank you in advance for clarifying exactly what changes you'd recommend. It's very difficult for a first time editor to decipher the Wiki guidelines, write proper code, etc. Your guidance is immensely appreciated!2605:E000:608D:1E00:C972:9B8D:5DF2:21AA (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mr. McClenon, thank you for your response on 29 October 2016 to my submission, 'Draft: David Breskin.'

I'm trying to edit the draft since learning it was declined so that it can be approved. I'm contacting you to find out exactly what you suggest I do. If I add sources for all facts that aren't yet sourced, is that your main concern?

I've since chatted online with Wiki online help volunteers, and they explained that even the subject's birth date and place, college attended, and other very basic facts need to be sourced. I am a first time editor so the learning curve is steep. I will pull sources for these basic facts, and try to substantiate any other facts that are not sourced.

As for the subject's website, I removed it since you expressed concern that the wiki was promoting his website. This is not the intent, and there is no for-profit content on his site. It's purely informational. I'd like to add his website address back in, but do it per Wiki's guidelines. I've seen that other subjects' websites are indeed included in Wiki entries. I hope you can advise me on how best to include the website URL. It is relevant, as anyone who is interested in this subject will want to access his writings and read about the music recordings he produced. Again, there is nothing for sale on the site.

Thank you in advance for clarifying exactly what changes you'd recommend. It's very difficult for a first time editor to decipher the Wiki guidelines, write proper code, etc. Your guidance is immensely appreciated!Cahadley (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again, Mr. McClenon,

This is once again concerning Draft: David Breskin. I've deleted the URLs for the subject's website and blog. I have deleted the code that made his book titles bold, after learning Wiki guidelines prohibit bolding of book titles. Given these improvements, are you still advising that the only thing I need to do is add sources for any facts that are currently unsourced? Or are there any other edits you require that I make to get approval?

Thank you for your valuable help for this first-time editor!Cahadley (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Cahadley - I will be asking for the comments of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. First, as to the difficulty of understanding the guidelines and "writing proper code", I don't see any of the guidelines as involving the writing of code. Second, I will also comment that when you refer to Wikipedia simply as Wiki, you annoy many Wikipedia volunteers, because there are many Wikis. I understand that you are doing it for short, but please use WP as shorthand instead. Third, it is true that it is difficult to write a complete new article with its references, and that this is the most difficult task that there is in Wikipedia. As such, it is unfortunate that many new editors think that is the only or the best way that they can help Wikipedia. We also need various kinds of help, such as copy-editing, with the articles that we already have, not only with the articles that we don't have. I will be asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Moonbouncer54 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Robert Mills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The text has been amended so it differs from the original article jointly put together and therefore from that published in the Institute of Physics magazine and attributed to only Ken Slater. The page at http://cayley.co.uk/john-robert-mills/ has been removed permanently. Please advise if this is sufficient to overcome all the copyright issues and whether you are happy for the draft to be re-submitted. Thanks Moonbouncer54 (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Moonbouncer54 - I thought that I had commented at the Teahouse that, following that discussion, I would allow another reviewer to review the draft. I will check the discussion there and will see whether I did comment to that effect. In any case, I will let another reviewer review the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon. Do I have to do anything for that to happen? Moonbouncer54 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Moonbouncer54 - Resubmit it. Is there a button to resubmit it? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Robert McClenon. Yes there was a resubmit button. It was resubmitted a few minutes ago. Thanks. Moonbouncer54 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rogersansom (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gordon Griffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Robert. Thank you for your review. I want to improve this submission. I did not know that IMDb is not considered a reliable source - I expect I can find a reliable source for these film credits. No intention of re-submitting without addressing previous concerns. I am inexperienced at this, not having originated an article for years. I at first forgot to insert the inline source references, and when the first review mentioned this, I did so. If I missed other concerns, it is because I am very unused to following the procedure, which is complex. I will address these concerns in due course, having researched the screen details. Would a published film reference book (I can think of a possible one) be considered reliable? I am feeling my way, and most grateful for guidance! Best wishes. Rogersansom (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information for the length of the list of publications. Does the author have an association with Yarwood? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm writing this article as a requirement for my fungal biology class at the University of Florida. We were told to choose a scientist from Wikipedia's list of mycologists

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mycologists), I chose Dr. Yarwood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cecil_Edmund_Yarwood

Comment: See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information for the length of the list of publications.

Does the author have an association with Yarwood? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm writing this article as a requirement for my fungal mycology class at the University of Florida. We were to chose a mycologist off Wikipedia's list of mycologists, I chose Dr. Yarwood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mycologists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cecil_Edmund_Yarwood

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Readbothsides (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Readbothsides (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)ReadbothsidesReply[reply]

Comment: The references are not in the form of footnotes.

A tag has been placed on User:Gingerwilso/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1083992/plotsummary. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dorotheainmiddle (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jim Jennings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dorotheainmiddle (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added references and would like to re-submit, using my sandbox version. How should I proceed? I'm sorry for being so technically inept. Karen

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JzG was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This reads as a promotional resume, not a Wikipedia biography. The style and language is reminiscent of that used by PR companies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jim Jennings and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Guy (Help!) 21:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your quick response to my Draft:Jim Brett submission. I know how busy Wiki editors are. I also appreciate the feedback you gave me and I will revise the draft with your feedback in mind. Again, I just wanted to say thanks. JNorman704 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• DivyaK (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pratyush Kumar Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Robert McClenon,

Please let me know how can I improve my draft article to get added in wikipedia page. Basically, what kind of references do I need to provide?

Regards, Divya

User:DivyaK - My first question for you is whether you have a connection with either the subject or with Boeing. Other than that, please format the references consistently, and put them all into the form of footnotes. I will ask for further comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jim Jennings. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• DivyaK (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pratyush Kumar Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings! I do have a connection with Mr. Pratyush Kumar Das. He is a sibling. I will format footnote and send for review. please let me know if any other improvements required.

• Skingirl13 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David Biro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Mr McClenon, My article was denied twice for reading as an advertisement. I thought I had done enough edits before resubmission. I believe Dr. Biro's work is important and believe that it belongs in a venue like Wikipedia. I have looked at other physician/writer's pages, ie- Christopher Adrian and Vincent Lam. They seem to have a very streamlined approach. Would you suggest I redo the entire page to mimic something more like his?

Thank youSkingirl13 (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Skingirl13 - I declined your draft for tone reasons, not for notability reasons. That is also why the previous reviewer declined your draft. I thought that it read like an advertisement for his books. I haven't looked at the other articles that you mention, but I would suggest "streamlining" the description of his books. If you want further advice, you may ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sieshoeke (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:FORT (collective) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting assistance and explanations regarding the recently posted entry about the artists from FORT (collective)

Dear Robert McClenon, I hope this finds you well. First I would like to thank you for taking a closer look at my recently written entry about FORT (collective). I work for a german gallery who represents this artist group and I already have written and published a german version of the entry about FORT (collective) successfully to the german Wikipedia site. Could you be so kind and help me with how I am supposed to include the references correctly since the text comes directly from the artists. It's not a quote, but they wrote it. The main reason for creating an entry was that the artists start to get known international and just moved from Germany to the USA for the next two years. Last but not least, I am wondering what you meant by saying the entry has tone issues. Could you clarify what exactly you mean and where to find it? I know it isn't a perfect entry, I am new to all this and I have to admit that I'm not good with computer science, nevertheless I tried to fulfill all the criteria given. I am sorry if the entry did not turn out the way it is supposed to. I look forward hearing from you and I will do my very best to make my entry a wikipedia worthy entry! Thank you very much again for your help. Best wishes, Sieshoeke (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Sieshoeke - I will be replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good day, Mr. McClenon

I added two outside sources. Is that good, is there anything more I can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinBradford (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Arm The Homeless. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ColinBradford - Unfortunately, when you added the two additional references, you did something so that I can't click on them. This means that I can't verify whether they are independent references. I am going to have to decline your draft again. I also notice that you complicated things by also putting an article on the guitar in article space, where it has been nominated for deletion. In its current state, it will be deleted. I do agree that your current draft, while not ready for acceptance, is better than the article, so that G4 shouldn't be an issue, just notability and tone issues. I see that you didn't address the tone issues. If you want further advice, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) @ColinBradford and Robert McClenon: To complicate things more, I've augmented both the article and its refs: I didn't realise there is more than one version floating around wikispace! _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am assuming that you mean that you augmented Arm The Homeless (guitar). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I intend to approve this draft. Despite the fact that this is a paid editor, I think it is a breach of WP:AGF for you to reject it for being promotional and withholding specifics on the assumption that the draft will somehow remain promotional despite any improvements. I beleive there is good evidence of notability here and the article is not likely to be deleted and therefore qualifies for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Most of the promotional language has already been removed and you're welcome to tag or improve the article to address any remaining issues. ~Kvng (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kvng - You seem either to misunderstand the point that I made four months ago or to be looking for a quarrel. I wouldn't say at the time what was promotional language because this was a case, that we sometimes see, where a paid editor says, "Please tell me what is promotional so that I can take that out", when it is clear that they want to leave the maximum permitted amount of promotional content in an article that was dripping with promotional content, and what the article needs is not one phrase trimmed but a whole rework. That was a few months ago and this is now. You will note that more recently I objected to one phrase and did not decline the draft. At that point I had too much history and was ready to let other reviewers deal with the draft. Notability was not the question anyway. Tone was. I wasn't planning to tag the draft. Whether I do now depends on what mood I am in. I wasn't looking for a quarrel, although it appears either that you misunderstood an old comment (about promotional editors who are in a hurry to get a draft in and want to fix one word) or are looking for a fight. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not aware of a pattern of paid editors playing games at AfC to push a promotional POV. I am aware of a pattern of AfC reviewers rejecting submissions for reasons outside the primary AfC acceptance criteria and so may have been going off on that and I apologize. I do think it best, and policy supports approving imperfect but qualified content and trusting that it gets improved once it gets some exposure in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kvng - Since you are new to AFC, being more familiar with NPP, there has always been a pattern of single-purpose accounts trying to get one article through. Sometimes they are good-faith new editors, but often they are conflict of interest editors, sometimes declared, sometimes undeclared. I am also aware that some AFC reviewers have been criticized for being too restrictive. I will only say that at least those AFC reviewers are acting in good faith to maintain the standards of Wikipedia, although they may be mistaken, and the paid editors are only acting in good faith after they declare that they are paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been doing AfC reviews for several years. I have not done much work at NPP. I try to assume everyone is acting in good faith. I don't always get there so if I didn't with this interaction, I apologize. ~Kvng (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikismartsg (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Master Long Tian Xiang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Reviewer, This page was not created for marketing purpose but really created for Master Long Tian Xiang to remember him. He is a famous figure in this field in the Singapore market but he was not found on Wikipedia. I just want to contribute an article to Wikipedia by consolidating the many third parties' objective comments found on forums and blogs on him. He wants to retire and really does not need to have more business. There are many many more references but I did not have enough time to put them up. I will continue to add when I have time.

To prove that this is not for marketing purpose for Master Long, I have shortened the writeup to make it more neutral. I have also managed to find one negative post about Master Long Tian Xiang and have added it as one of the reference too.

I have spent a few hours to search for the references to complete this article. So please help to reconsider again to approve my contribution. Thanks!

I will reply at the Teahouse. However, the revised draft, in my opinion, has too little content to be worth considering accepting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I have already edited my draft. I think that I take full effort to it and yet not approved. That is all I can do to improve my draft. There are many Thai sources but I am very sure that I cannot use those source here. English source is not that much which make my draft has not enough information like you suggest to me. Anyway, I really want my article to be in the website so much. My project is rely on that. Thank you.Reso7373 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft is Draft:Green Mango with Sweet Fish Sauce. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. According to the infobox, the subject of the draft (Eddie Marshudi) is a 15 year old kid. The draft's creator, User:Teamshoudy hasn't got a clue of how WP works, obviously doesn't care, and by his own admission (here and here) is Eddie Marshudi himself. Hopefully, he'll take my message on board, but if not, just to clarify a couple of things... User:Artistaroundtheworld who created the thrice deleted Eddie Marshudi in September was indefinitely blocked for using Wikipedia for advertising/self promotion, not for socking. However, that account is not stale. If Teamshoudy continues his disruptive behaviour, a checkuser can be run on Artistaroundtheworld until mid-December. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have the page watchlisted, and the editor has been warned. If any new accounts begin trying to get Harshudi listed, we can pursue both socking and disruptive editing. Do you know how long the data is still considered valid for Checkuser? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's valid for 90 days from the last edit. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Binary firing system".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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)) 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Diannaa - It wasn't my article. I merely moved it to draft space. Once in a while these things happen and I get the notice when the author should. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did the nomination via Twinkle, which chose you to receive the notice. I will make sure the actual page creator gets notified. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Diannaa - I know that occasionally Twinkle gets confused. No real problem. Thanks for doing the admin job. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, I am new here. Can you tell me should I continue with submission of draft on Igor Janev or just remove the text. Thanks!Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does "protection" mean that only admins can create art. or what? Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Morning McClenon, Thanks for your comment "This draft needs copy-editing following its translation into English from French. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)". Should I do this edition myself or is the contribution of someone else required ?

Thank you for your time ! IFPEB — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFPEB (talk • contribs) 09:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Contest for better Use and Building Efficiency.

User:IFPEB - If you are able to improve the quality of the English, then you may do that yourself, or you may ask to have someone else do it. This is a common problem, and there are people who can do it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this submission. As this has been rejected by several different reviewers for differing reasons, and as I see from some of the discussion on your Talk page that you have been kind enough to help take submissions through to completion and approve in the past, I would be very grateful if you would do likewise for mine.

The issue you highlight is notability. As we are all aware, classical music is a niche, living composers of it yet more so. Unless a composer has written film music, which the subject of this draft review has not, he or she will be somewhat obscure. Still, in this world, Matthew Curtis is notable for the number of recordings and performances (radio broadcasts are the most easily verifiable and hence partially quoted), and his music has been reviewed in the industry magazine Gramophone (see various references in the draft), referenced in a book (ref 14), reviewed in "The Spectator" (ref 16) which is absolutely not an industry publication, and has even been performed in the presence of HM the Queen (ref 12). There is also a reference to him in an existing Wikipedia article (English Music Festival).

If we can agree that this is sufficient to establish notability, the issue may be that I have done a poor job of ensuring this is clear to the reader, and I would welcome any suggestions you have to ensure I get this right.

Kind regards UserSCL 1958 UserSCL1958 (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft is Draft:Matthew Curtis (composer). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will ask for additional comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for doing this, and also for turning this around so quickly. I will be interested to see the response.UserSCL1958 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now incorporated some of the material found and suggestions made by your colleague TimothyJosephWood on the Teahouse, and hope that we are almost there - as I understand the criteria for notability in WP:MUSBIO, we should now have enough articles devoted purely to the composer and his music to justify his inclusion based on "Others" para 1, and the asides in a work devoted to Coates and in the Spectator would also support his being sufficiently notable within British light classical music. However I note that a citation is needed to support the "over 8 hours" of recorded music. Please let me know how I can best do this. The total run time of all the CDs/Tracks comes to 486 minutes 43 seconds in total, but can I just cite that?UserSCL1958 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SCL1958 - As the banner at the top of my talk page explains, I normally will not follow a submission through the improvement and approval process. You received some comments at the Teahouse. We can either go back there, or I can find a WikiProject that can give you advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After some cleanup, I have accepted the draft. TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for your help in getting this article to acceptable standards - I have also thanked Timothyjosephwood.

UserSCL1958 (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I noticed your comment at a certain AfC regarding such articles. From what I've gathered, there appears to be an undocumented class project from King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi that involves the creation of Wikipedia articles on topics related to Thailand. This has been going on periodically for a few years now, but none of the editors I asked have replied to my queries regarding the nature of the class. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noticed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help. I'll copy the above comment there. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Aliseca (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mohamad Fakih (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)