Robert, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pmsouc I apologise if it looks like I have duplicated a submission. My understanding was that the article was sitting in the Draft space for a number of months but on checking the guidance it looked like it had to be moved to my own user space and then submitted. My understanding of the Draft page is that this is a temporary page. Provided the original article is in the queue for review that is fine.Pmsouc (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pmsouc - You created multiple copies. I will review one copy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Robert McClenon Pmsouc (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pmsouc - Please review the musical notability criteria and identify which criteria she satisfies. I am not saying that she does or does not satisfy the criteria, but that I am asking you to decide which criteria are applicable. Please indicate on the draft talk page what criteria are applicable and what references apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have created another page kindly review my sandbox and let me know what's you feedback.(Aureliojohn (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Aureliojohn/sandbox. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Masked Singer (American TV series) Rider0101, (talk) 2:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert, I had posted a page to be published and you had deleted it due to a quote from a magazine that was used directly. I would gladly update that to be a paraphrased version but the entire page is now gone. How can it be restored and then fixed? Thank you for any insight you can provide on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravikrishnan72 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ravikrishnan72 - After considerable searching, I see that a draft page Draft:Sumitomo SHI FW was deleted on 4 November 2019 by User:RHaworth for copyright violation. Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously, and I see no particular reason why we should assist you in recovering content that was lost because you infringed copyright. If you have the original material available on your computer or elsewhere, you can resubmit it. If you believe that a substantial amount of non-infringing material was deleted, you can request undeletion at Requests for Undeletion, although material that was deleted for copyright violation is very seldom if ever restored, or you can request Deletion Review. In either case, I am not optimistic that we will be able to restore your page. It should have been your responsibility to keep a copy of it. I have found a record that I moved your sandbox to Draft:Sumitomo SHI FW. I cannot retrieve its content. You should have kept a copy of it. User:Liz then deleted your sandbox because it was only a redirect to a deleted page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was also hopelessly spammy. If a new version were to be created, it would need to have almost entirely different text so there is no point in letting you see the deleted stuff. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:RHaworth - I assume you are telling the OP that there is no point is letting them see the deleted draft, because I didn't ask to see it. It is common for material to be both copyvio G12) and spammy (G11) if it was copied from corporate advertising. That is two reasons why we don't want that crap in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Suarezmartell (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Webfleet Solutions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert. I'm writing to kindly ask for your help in regards to a Wikipedia entry I submitted two months ago.

I created a Wikipedia entry for my client, "Webfleet Solutions" and submitted it two months ago. At the time I received timely feedback from you, I quickly made all the arrangements (added third party information from reliable sources) you suggested on your feedback but I have not received any news or update or feedback from you or any other reviewer.

I wanted to ask you if you knew a way of knowing when will I receive new feedback or to know if my entry is approved or rejected? I contacted the help desk yesterday and they sent me information regarding conflicts of interests but I'm not sure how this is related to me since Webfleet Solutions is not my company.

Also, I would like to know if I edit the draft version and submit it again, will the days start counting again until a reviewer can see my entry? I mean, if I edit it again, will I have to wait two more months?

On the other hand, before submitting this entry I had not previously been active on Wikipedia and had no Wiki authority, does this affect the review of my entry?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Suarezmartell (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Suarezmartell - Since User:ColinFine has replied to you at the Help Desk, I have replied there rather than here so that we can keep the discussion in one place. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Joseph I. Castro. Thanks! -- Deepfriedokra 04:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert,

I noticed you declined my draft, thanks for the feedback! I added more sources and rewrote my draft article. The topic is worth writing an article on and I've really been struggling write this. There are reliable sources out there cambridge source. Many of these sources are restricted by paywalls, and I can't afford to go out of the way. This is an important article. Please hear me out, I'd love feedback and help with the article. Best,

Flalf (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flalf - I do not usually follow a draft through the approval process. However, you say that this is an important article. Why is it important? Why is the subject notable? Is it important because you are working for the subject? If so, please read the conflict of interest policy and make your declaration. The article should explain why the subject is notable. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. If I were to re-review the draft, I would decline it again, and I do not think that the Teahouse will be optimistic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only conflict of interest is that I'm interested in it. I'm about as remote as physically possible from that person. I live on a different continent and I learned about them only a few weeks ago while researching for the ambazonia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flalf (talk • contribs) 14:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flalf - Why is it important to have a separate stub article for Draft:Fon Gorji Dinka? His notability appears to have to do with the Ambazonia independence movement. I suggest asking for advice at the Teahouse, but they are likely to advise including any appropriate information about Dinka in the article on the region. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Joseph I. Castro. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jziemniak (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Shields (chef) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you. This is for a different chef with the same name, John Shields, in Chicago. Please let me know if there are any changes I can make!

Jziemniak (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jziemniak - This is an interesting situation because it seems that more disambiguation is needed than is usually the case, because there are two people in the same line of work with the same name. I have renamed your draft to include his middle initial. This is an interesting disambiguation question, and I suggest asking for advice at the Teahouse as to exactly what is the preferred degree of disambiguation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph I. Castro, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Teahouse#Disambiguation and Draft:John B. Shields (chef), the other editor posted Wikipedia:Teahouse#Disambiguation Question for Two Individuals with Same Name in Same Line of Work earlier, if you'd like to combine the two sections, or ... —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon,

I don't have an opinion on the matter, but the ANI thread originated with a single proposal, supported by one other editor, and then devolved (as is typical at ANI) into a series of sidebar discussions and general comments and observations. Given Girth Summit's comment that he would like to see the thread closed, I'm contemplating closing as no consensus and/or wrong venue or unclear proposal. There's a lot of involved editors and administrators that are likely precluding it from being closed. There is some later discussion that some issues may be worth considering, in a different venue, but there is no consensus for the original proposal. Being an experienced editor, and seeing as you're also uninvolved in that thread, would you mind giving me a second opinion on if you think such a close has merit?

If you prefer to close that thread, I would have no issues with that as well.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 02:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bot just archived that discussion. What's the policy on unclosed ANI discussions being archived? Should they be closed, or perhaps one should initiate a request for closure? --Doug Mehus T·C 02:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dmehus - Threads in WP:ANI are archived if there is no activity in a period of time which may be 72 hours. If you read the header of an archive, you will notice that it normally has instructions which say not to edit it. That means do not edit the archive of a talk page or a noticeboard. This amounts to a close due to community boredom. So the community decided not to do anything about that issue because they didn't do anything in 72 hours. User:Girth Summit could have closed the thread if they had acted. Now my view, which is consistent with the banner at the top of the archive, is to let sleeping bears sleep. (If you wake up a bear, the result is unpredictable, because bears are unpredictable, but one likely result is that the bear will injure you and then go back to sleep.) If the user who was the original subject of the discussion messes with the article, then I would suggest that a report at the edit-warring noticeboard would be more likely to get action than another report at WP:ANI, but either would be reasonable. If there is another thread opened, then please ping me. I wasn't paying attention to that WP:ANI thread. But to answer your question about policy, the policy is that the thread is closed by having been ignored by the community for 72 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I didn't feel I should be the closer, since I'd expressed an opinion on one of the various side issues that arose (the relisting of the AfD, which was criticised by the OP). I'm quite content for it to slip away into the archive and attract dust instead of flame. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will restate something that apparently needs restating. The banner at the top of a noticeboard archive that says not to edit the contents of the archive means not to edit the archive of a noticeboard or a talk page. If you think that you misread it because your thread was supposed to be closed, you read it correctly, and it says not to edit the archive. Leave it alone, like a sleeping bear. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear? I am not suggesting that it should be closed post-archiving - I just dropped in to explain why I didn't close it myself (since you pinged me, and mentioned that I could have done so), and to say that I'm happy to leave it as is. I'm not suggesting that anyone disturb the bears... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit and Robert McClenon, thanks for your replies. I didn't realize ANI threads could be archived without closure. It's clear that nothing needs to happen from that thread as there's no clear outcome on what, if anything, needs to happen. If someone from that thread wants to re-open an aspect of that discussion, they're certainly able to do that by bringing a new discussion to an appropriate venue. Doug Mehus T·C 16:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dmehus - There is much detail about Wikipedia, some of which one should know, most of which one can get away without knowing, as long as one doesn't mess in it. This may be off any subject, but, User:Dmehus, please consider whether, if you don't know how WP:ANI is archived, and there are other things you don't know, is it possible that you don't know enough to do non-admin closures of XFD? Either you know what you are doing and can't explain it, so that other think you don't know what you are doing, or you actually don't know what you are doing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I accept that don't know everything about Wikipedia and, you're right, you can get away with that as it's not necessary. However, to be honest, I find the ANI page overly cluttered relative to other areas of Wikipedia, so I just missed that banner you referenced. In terms of non-admin closures, I haven't closed any AfDs (other than withdrawing my nomination) and my closures have been limited to a handful of RfDs and several TfDs. I have curtailed my closures at TfD pending a more thorough understanding of the nuances of the process and, even at RfD, I have not closed anything in over a month. None have been challenged at DRV and all were supported by the participants, but even there, I want to more fulsomely digest the applicable policies in that area before I resume closures. At least 4-6 months. Even when I resume doing a few closures, I will still limit myself to one or two areas and not AfD, given that is a much more high profile and controversial area. CfDs can be complicated in terms of multiple closing outcomes discussed in the comments, so would also avoid that, and I would also avoid MfD until the dispute over portals ends. Doug Mehus T·C 17:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You posted a message on the Occupational stress dispute. I think it can be closed for two reasons:

• Today we worked on updating the lede regarding the content that Lightningstrikers was concerned about
• The user has been blocked for 2 weeks here.

I am hoping that we all come back with a calmer approach going forward. Should this be closed now?

I wasn't sure how to ask that on the dispute page if no one had volunteered to take it yet.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:CaroleHenson -  Done Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! And, I don't remember being part of a dispute before, but am now familiar with how it works, thanks to you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon, last month you had rejected Biographical article of "Sunil Prem Vyas". i'm not able to understand what kind of changes should i do in article. first point you said i can split this article with another article "Take it easy (Movie 2015)" which is directed by Sunil Perm Vyas. but this is movie article and i had discuss with one of our editor on Tea house, he said we can not add biography information in movie article. second point you said this person is not notable but i have given you some news paper links of mid-day Mumbai, Times of India and some other web links. i have saw some Biographical article on Wikipedia with very less references but they got publish. so i think i have given proper references then why my article is getting declined. so i don't want to split this article with another article i want to make biography article of Sunil Prem Vyas. so please guide me for the same.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay1Rudra1 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jay1Rudra1 - First, the page that was rejected was a sandbox that has only a picture of Vyas but no biography. If you want to use your sandbox for some other purpose, you can blank it and reuse it. Second, I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are having difficulty in communicating in English. Have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia in your first language, maybe the Hindi Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 05:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Toy portals, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Toy portals and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Toy portals during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon, thank you for reviewing my submission. It seems I have resubmitted a more recent draft with the same name. How do we move forward reviewing the most recent draft (December 28, 2019), and discarding the first draft reviewed in (September 30, 2019)? Thank you for your help. Namnguyen408 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Namnguyen408 - The draft in question is Draft:Trang T. Lê. You submit a draft for review by submitting it. You did not submit that draft. Click on the tab for the purpose. Do you want me to submit it for you? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I was wondering if the updated draft has been resubmitted properly, with the updated edits. Thank you Namnguyen408 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of people's opinions on User:Bryan.Wade's case, I am wondering if I need to take any special actions on User:ChopChop4, considering that, after checking, for all 3 days of their account's existence all they have done is accumulate userboxes. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moonythedwarf - As they say at UAA, let the user edit. If the user edits, the userboxes are harmless. If the user doesn't edit, the userboxes just sit there and are harmless. None of them tell lies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to ask you to reconsider your decision to not allow the creation of my article called “Inca Pisac”.

You suggested that I incorporate what I have written into the existing “Pisac” article.

I visited the area in 2017 and was blown away of how massive what I term “Inca Pisac” is. Upon my return home I found that there is very little information available on it, mostly tourist blogs and the odd scientific paper. As a result I decided to be bring it to people’s attention. I had intended once the article was accepted to then revise the main “Pisac” article.

The concurrent Wikipedia article called “Pisac” is on the existing town and surrounding area. This area was settled by various tribes from which no buildings remains before it was conquered by the Incas. They constructed a massive complex on a mountain side overlooking the valley. This complex is believed to have functioned as a combined royal retreat, farm, fortress and town. When the Spanish came the Inca complex was abandoned and the Spanish established a town on the valley floor below it and gave the Inca name to this town.

In many ways what I have termed “Inca Pisac” is the same as the following all of which have separate articles in Wikipedia: - The Acropolis overlooking Athens - The Alhambra palace complex overlooking the city of Granada - Edinburgh castle overlooking Edinburgh

If what you are saying is correct then shouldn’t these and any place, castle, significant structure not have a separate article and instead be incorporated in the article on the town or city in which they are located. If you search for “Pisac Archaeological Park” in Google maps and go to the 3D option you will get an appreciation of its size and how it relates to the town.

Part of the problem is that the name “Inca Pisac” also refers to the period of Inca occupation of the area, which I think confused you. If you agree that your decision should be reversed there is still the problem of the article name, if you feel it is confusing. Various peoples seem to use the terms “Inca ruins”, “Inca citadel”. “Inca ruins at Pisac” is not suitable as it is a term of the state of repair. “Inca citadel at Pisac” is not quite correct as it had more functions than acting as a fortress. The legal name of the complex is the “Pisca Archeological Park”. I don’t think this is the best as we don’t use the legal name for the palaces, castles, etc which are now museums as their article name. But at the end of the day the important thing is to describe this stunning place. John Prattley (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC) John Prattley[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Inca Písac. (It helps a reviewer to be given a link to the draft or article in question.) If you think that a separate article should be spun out from the article on the village to discuss the Inca ruin, the place to discuss splitting an article is the talk page of the existing article, that is, Talk:Písac. Please discuss there. If you have any further questions, then experienced editors may be able to help you at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon

Could you please spare some time to review my draft? Could you please check this draft out for an approval? Draft:Martin Fayomi. I added extra links on the talk page of the article. Maybe this could be considered. --Goldie19 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goldie19 - I do not usually follow a draft through the approval process, but I am willing to ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse to comment within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Would be expecting a feedback. --Goldie19 (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RMcC, I hope you don't stress too much about the discussion at Talk:Take It Easy (2015 film). I just need a little clarification. Sorry if you felt that it went a little weird. We're all still friends. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyphoidbomb - I thought I had clarified it after the first explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyphoidbomb - To explain a little further, what was weird was that I had apparently confused you to the point where I couldn't resolve the confusion, because I thought that I had tried to explain that it was a question of whether to spin out an article and that the place to discuss was the existing article. I felt that I was trapped in the situation where what I communicated the first time was not what I meant, and where it was apparently impossible to re-explain. Maybe now I have explained, and maybe I will still have to explain four more times. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert! I had submitted the Dilshad draft for review. Thanks for reviewing it. I hope it isn't wrong if I "argue" for my "case" :D

I had earlier made this article which was passed by Frayae. I believe the Dilshad one matches that one's "quality". Also, Largoplazo had commented on the Dilshad draft that "It's definitely better, nice". That was what made me confident enough that it would pass the review. How do you think I can improve it till it becomes eligible for an article? Your suggestions would be a great help. Cheers! — JosephJames 05:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mystery Jets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Curve of the Earth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cabayi (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, you got twinkled since ASA c&p'd another copy over the redirect you left. Cabayi (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cabayi - Oh. That sandbox. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• HumOutcomes (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aid Worker Security Database (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HumOutcomes (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is in reference to the article you recently denied Draft:Aid Worker Security Database. I've left a comment/question on Teahouse, If you'd like to review. Thank you.

Also - Robert McClenon how do I go about resubmitting my article for another review by you? Or do I not resubmit? Thanks!

If you have some time, this has been the subject of some strife and discontent.-- Deepfriedokra 17:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra - I have given the user an additional warning for the personal attack of yelling vandalism. I haven't reviewed the draft in detail but agree that it should be reviewed by a neutral editor. I have looked at the WP:ANI thread. If the editor in question is indeffed, it will leave the draft to be available for review in a few weeks or a few months by a neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with User:Deepfriedokra and User:Winged Blades of Godric in one detail, and that is that, in my opinion, draftifying an undersourced article a second time should never be done, even if its author is a known paid editor. Draftifying a page twice is move-warring, and move-warring is disruptive, and experienced editors should not edit-war or move-war. If the page has been improperly moved into article space a second time, it should be taken to AFD instead. That is my opinion anyway. But I agree with the current move-protection, and I do not plan to accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I wasn't going to review it, but I see that a previous article on the actress was already deleted after a deletion discussion, and that was sufficient for me to decline it with a warning that I am ready to nominate it for deletion if it is resubmitted again without evidence that it satisfies a special notability guideline. Also, I agree that the editor should be blocked for the personal attacks of yelling vandalism. I do not have an opinion on whether the block should be for 72 hours or indefinite. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Robert. I thought it best to draft again under the circumstances rather than move right to AfD. Creator is overwrought.-- Deepfriedokra 12:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Msasag reported by User:Bhaskarbhagawati (Result: ). The DRN, which concluded in June 2019, was here. Reading the DRN gives me the impression that one particular editor was most of the problem. Any comment is welcome, EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:EdJohnston I will check it within 8 hours or less. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston - Yes. That was an extremely difficult DRN, and I agree with the assessment of User:Bbb23. The ANI report was almost a year ago, but the other party to the DRN likely remembers it as clearly and bitterly as if it were last week. The editor who filed the report at the edit-warring noticeboard was, in my opinion, the one who made the DRN difficult, and it lasted several months. I suggest that you also consult with User:Abecedare, who was in the background with the Sword of Damocles. I had to threaten to fail the moderation and to let the parties go back to Arbitration Enforcement at least twice, and was ready to recommend that they be topic-banned. I haven't looked at the recent edit-war, but if the filing editor is being a bully, which is what it appears, then they have been notified of India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions, and a topic-ban may be the only way to contain this. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting editors who worked on 2019 Lilbourn, Missouri Earthquake know it was proposed for deletion. Comments can be made here Talk:2019 Lilbourn, Missouri Earthquake. (You worked on the draft version) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAlain and I have collaborated for many years. He translated all Bach cantatas to French, and created articles such as Reinhold Fritz (where I pointed by "read below"), and thousands of others. Admitted, we both are foreigners, and have problems with English. I thought inviting him to the teahouse was not appropriate. When an editor is new to you, perhaps check out Precious (= go to my user page, click on the word Peace, search for the name). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gerda Arendt - I will consider your advice, and will recognize that User:LouisAlain is an experienced editor. Wikipedia is sometimes a strange complicated place. I will add that you do not have problems with English. Your English is at proficiency level 4, and I cannot tell the difference in writing between level 4 and level 5. (What I do notice is that you appear to have a higher education, just as I do.) I didn't choose to invite him to the Teahouse. I simply used the Articles for Creation script, and it decides whether to invite an editor to the Teahouse. If an editor chooses to use Articles for Creation, they will get invited to the Teahouse. He can ignore the invitation, just as anyone else who gets it from a script can. I will pass on to the editors who maintain the script that it annoys some experienced editors who submit articles for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain. My education is as you assume, and noted in the infobox on my user page. LouisAlain doesn't choose AfC (afaik), but others move his creations to draft, where some simmer until too old ... - sad topic. They are moved to draft because they are translations from fr and de, where sourcing is different. I struggle with that a lot, and sometimes feel that writing an article from scratch is easier than the search for sources some other editor, often much earlier, and offline, may have had. End of sigh, happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robert,
Thank you for deleting the draft. I incorrectly submitted it as an article for creation when I was, in fact, attempting to create a user-page. I was looking for how to retract the submission myself, but you beat me to it. Sorry for wasting your time! I am still learning how to properly use the site.
-Claudia

Loanfish (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia - You already have created a user page. So I think that we are all right. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Order of Franciscans Ecumenical, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to review Draft:Brooke Butler but i want to clear this up with you first, in the case where she doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV can it still be reviewed with WP:NACTOR guidelines? Cause the coverage for the subject is low or close to nothing and being that she's played a couple of roles there should be something. Lapablo (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lapablo - That's a good question, and I would like to see it discussed at the Articles for Creation talk page, but here is what I think, and why it is complicated. The primary guideline for notability for anything is the general notability guideline, and significant coverage is what is described by the general notability guideline. There are also a number of special notability guidelines. I for one prefer the special notability guidelines, because they are usually clearer, and they sometimes provide an ipso facto test. The exact relationship between the general notability guidelines and any special notability guideline, such as acting notability, is occasionally contentious. As written, most of the special notability guidelines usually say that if they are met, notability is "presumed", and occasionally, typically with sports notability, someone has a snit and decides that some sportsperson fails general notability although they passed a sports notability guideline. My own thinking is to pretend that the special notability guideline is the only one that matters if there is one, because it is clearer. So my advice would be not to assess for significant coverage at all, but to look at whether she passes acting notability. If she does, accept the draft, and it will almost certainly be all right. If she doesn't pass acting notability, she almost certainly will not pass general notability either. So: Has she had multiple significant roles?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lapablo - Also, if you decide to accept it, and you need help with the redirect, please let me know and I will move it. A hatnote will then be added. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So around two years ago I decided I would try and become the "Influencer Guy" on wiki. So I made pages for several YouTube Celebrities and Agency's. I think all of my submissions got deleted, and then I got bored and went elsewhere. But I returned today out of curiosity, and see that other users picked up where I left off. Several of my pages have since been approved. Thats really cool...but one page seems to be hijacked by the company itself. I made the article for Traackr, and it was very long. I took a long time on it...and it was completely neutral. Complete w/ a section for controversy. Anyhow, it looks like last mont the company itself tried to submit it's own article, and in doing so deleted my draft and created a fluff peice. You went ahead and denied their article and basically told them to quit being corporate scum. How do I get my original draft back? I can't find it anywhere in the revision history? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Traackr Thanks dude! --PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:PopCultureSuperHero - What exact name did you give to the article or draft that you created? There was a page deleted from article space eight years ago that was also a fluff piece by the same author as wrote the draft that I declined last month. There was also a draft deleted two years ago named Draft:Traackr, the same name as the one I declined. It was deleted as G11, which is the code for spam or advertising. If it was yours, then you could ask to have it undeleted, but requests to have things undeleted that were deleted as G11 are usually denied. You ask for undeletion at Requests for Undeletion. However, I am not optimistic that you can get your draft restored. You can ask for further advice at the Teahouse, but they may say much the same thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see a View Logs link when you view the history of the draft? That shows you a few actions, including any past deletions with the same name. Of course, it only works with the same name, not a similar name. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MY RESPONSE: I can't find anything to say that the article ever existed at all, which is strange because I made it. I have the code saved in a Google Doc. I'd rather not resubmit something that got deleted already however. I just figured if it was already there maybe I could edit it up. I'll just let this one ride off into the sun. Thanks for the info dude. PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you called it Trackr or Traackr.com. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PopCultureSuperHero: Robert is correct. Your 5 edits to Draft:Traackr are the 5 edits which were deleted in 2018 as "spam or advertising". Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but at least you now have the mystery solved :) --kingboyk (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingboyk: Thanks man! PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted after considering the notability criteria pointed out (thanks!, there was indeed some stuff to clean up and reorganize). References and comments have been added to make clear the contribution to the academic discipline of algorithmic music, as well as citations to its global impact in the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quipa (talk • contribs) 10:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quipa - I didn't really review the draft and I didn't decline it. I only commented that it should be reviewed. I may review it in the future, or I may leave it for another reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Bkissin. That illustrates two unrelated issues with the scripts that reviewers use. The one that I usually complain about is that it thinks it was my sandbox. My only connection was that I had moved a previous draft out of that sandbox. Also, it doesn't accept the reviewer's input as to what language it is. Well, I didn't decline that draft, and so I never said it was in German. But I have tried to say that drafts were in German or French or Spanish, and it has sometimes only said that they weren't in English. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wish there was a way to fix the script so it only notified the original creator, rather than everyone who has been involved in the article process. Bkissin (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bkissin - If it notifies multiple editors who were involved in the history, then it is worth the false positives to avoid any misses where the actual creator is not notified. If it is notifying multiple editors, including the true creator, then I will mostly stop complaining, because it is a reasonable solution then, if it minimizes the annoyance factor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mmizeasrm (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:American Society for Reproductive Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been told my article is not being published because it seems I may be compensated directly or indirectly for this article. I was asked to reply here to assure wiki that that is not the case. I assure you that is not the case. I am not being paid directly or indirectly to create and post this article.

Mmizeasrm (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mmizeasrm - Who asked you to reply her that you are not being paid for the draft? Who told you that your article is not being published because you are being paid directly or indirectly for it? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:I received the below from Dorsetonian. Please see in the message below where I am asked to respond to the message below that I am not being compensated directly or indirectly. I apparently replied to you rather than Dorsetonian in error. I apologize. Can you help me?

Hello Mmizeasrm. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to American Society for Reproductive Medicine, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Mmizeasrm. The template ((paid)) can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: ((paid)). If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Per [1] Dorsetonian (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the edits to the article. After making changes to it and following your suggestions, I moved the article to mainspace, where it was later reverted to draftspace and blocked by User:Bearcat who said it's mandatory to re-submit for further review (though, he still hasn't shown me where it says that this is mandatory). In any event, I'd like to request your help and receive feedback for further edits, if any. I've made suggested changes to the sources, added a COI (not an autobiography), and adjusted the tone. Please advise on next steps, as it would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:AMPLIFYHER2020 - Well, I disagree with User:Bearcat's actions somewhat, but I completely disagree with your actions. I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, and I very seldom if ever assist paid editors or other editors who have conflict of interest. In my opinion, rather than moving your article back to draft space a second and a third time, User:Bearcat should have nominated it for deletion, but that is a difference of opinion. You should not have been move-warring with Bearcat. Editors who have a conflict of interest are not permitted to move their drafts into article space or otherwise to edit them. I do not know whether Karlyn Percil is notable, but, now that you have move-warred, it is unlikely that an article will be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD closed; userspaced without redirect to User:Robert McClenon/Toy portals. PS: It's been my direct experience that if you want to track down previous references to something like this (e.g. with "What links here"), and fix the links to point to the current location, no one is likely to object (even in talk-page archives). It'll almost never produce a revert if you leave the original link (if visible) alone and pipe it to the current location. But many editors would not care to bother with that, since most of us don't read archives unless looking for something specific.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't understand what i should do to improve the article should i delete eh article on my sandbox because there are 2 copies of the article ?, that's what i understand from these messages.--FCBlinder (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:FCBlinder - Which version do you want reviewed? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon i want the draft not the article in the sandbox.--FCBlinder (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon i put the new sources in the draft can you review again ?.--FCBlinder (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this material came to me several weeks ago and requested me to assist him create his first article. I did not have the time at that time. When I found the time, I noticed that his draft has been rejected on more than one occasion, despite the presence of adequate referencing (admittedly not well formatted). I also noticed that the draft was under threat of deletion, because it had gone stale.

As I formulate the best way to help this young editor, I copied his material to one of my sandbox pages, until User:Wkigenyi can create a sandbox of his/her own. I have sent a message to the owner of the material to inform him that I am ready to work with him/her.

If the transfer of material to one of my sandboxes violates some Wikipedia rule, please show me how to do it properly. If it is a problem, I will delete the material, as I have other ways to help the writer without using his draft. Your guidance is welcome. Thank you. Fsmatovu (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fsmatovu - My first comment is to ask for advice at the Teahouse. It isn't clear to me why you thought it was necessary to copy-paste this into your sandbox when it was already in draft space (and when you could have put it in their sandbox). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon,

1. In the draft space, either you or one of your colleagues threatened to erase the draft. I might wake up tomorrow and that draft is gone! I wanted it in a place where I could find it when time came to work on it. 2. I could not find a sandbox for [[User:Wkigenyi. If it exists, please show me and I will gladly put the draft there. 3. My concern now is that the young man or woman has been frustrated and given up editing on Wikipedia for good. He/She has not responded to my messages in the last two days.Fsmatovu (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fsmatovu - I will be requesting input from other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please can you give me some guidance on what to improve to get this page approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Corda_(decentralized_database) All of the sources are independent, and other blockchain platforms in Corda's peer group (some that are significantly less notable) have their own pages. Any help appreciated - thanks Nickpwarren (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nickpwarren - I have a few questions. The first question is not optional. Do you have any affiliation with R3? All of your edits have been about R3, David E. Rutter, and Corda. If you have any conflict of interest, you must declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. Second, does the Corda product satisfy software notability? Third, do the other blockchain platforms that have their own articles satisfy software notability? If not, should they be nominated for deletion? Other Stuff Exists is never a satisfactory argument in itself for the acceptance of a draft. After you answer the first question, we can discuss software notability at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Windlass Steelcrafts, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The article exists because an editor just copied and pasted the text into the main space from the draft. Now the whole history of the draft is lost and this person is "credited" in the main space article as the main contributor, which he/she is not. Please merge the histories, or have an admin help merge the histories so we don't lose credit to contributors of the original (which is also required by copyright). Thank you in advance Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 13:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Teemeah - It appears that what is needed is a History Merge, which is somewhat different from a regular merge. I have left your merge request on the page, but have added a History Merge request. This is done by an administrator, and is done in order to preserve the attribution in accordance with the terms of the copyleft. I think that is what you are requesting. In any case, thank you for calling the attention of reviewers and administrators to the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is a history merge I meant. Thank you! Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 17:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, I'll be more than pleased to nom. Lourdes 08:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd co-nom, Lourdes, but it depends whether he would have me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lourdes - I am willing to try again if you have looked at my previous RFA, and if you recognize that I haven't tried to be the different editor that some well-meaning supporters told me I should become, and then try again. That is, some editors gave me advice for the track record I should establish in order to have another RFA. I didn't plan to become an "excellent content creator" or to be more tolerant of crud. If you are willing to nominate me again anyway, then I would prefer to wait about a week to ten days and then give it a chance again. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kudpung - I think that the comments addressed my concerns. I am willing, but will wait a week to ten days. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

FWIW, I like you just fine and would have supported the last time had I known.-- Deepfriedokra 17:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How has been your deletion tagging (the issue which was a significant one pointed out)? SoWhy, just pinging you to request you to keep this thread in your watchlist if possible. Thanks, Lourdes 06:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lourdes - I have done little deletion tagging since then. I was doing New Page Patrol before auto-confirmed trial, and was tagging crud that needed tagging. The issue was that I was thought by some editors to be tagging it too quickly, and I respectfully disagreed with their opinion. So I have not been at New Page Patrol much recently, now that the throw-away accounts have to play for four days before they can submit stuff, and some of them learn what is a proper submission, and some of them submit to AFC, which is even more backlogged. If your question is whether I have become a different editor or have grown up, the answer is no. I was already a grown-up. If the question is whether I have annoyed anyone recently, the answer is that I have annoyed a few contentious editors about content disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Whenever you are ready, ping me a couple of days in advance. Let's start working on your mandatory queries in the meanwhile. Lourdes 13:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lourdes - I'm ready any time, and will be even more ready on Wednesday. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we set up a sub-page with your three mandatory questions? Or would you prefer email communication? Thanks, Lourdes 12:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for the barnstar! It brightened up a less than stellar day today. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 210.6.22.101 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jiri Prochazka (martial artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jiri_Prochazka_(martial_artist)

The MMA notability criteria has been met

1.Have fought at least three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER);

Has fought 12 times for Rizin FF which is considered a top tier organization.

The list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability#Current_list_of_notable_MMA_organizations_and_promotions is outdated. If rules are consistent then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Lee should not have a wikipedia page because she has only fought at ONE Championship which is second tier according to the list

or 2.Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization

He is currently Rizin FF Light Heavyweight Champion and has vacated the title to fight for the UFC which is a top tier organization.

210.6.22.101 (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you mind explaining this move here? Normally, you would G6 the redirect first, right? L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:L293D I always (almost always) deal with drafts that replace redirects in this fashion. An example is a redirect for an album to the article on the musical artist, or a redirect for a song to the article on the album. Then a draft is written for the article or the song. If I were to G6 the redirect first, I would have to wait for the administrator to delete the redirect first, which would leave the title temporarily vacant until I saw that the redirect had been deleted. What I do is to move the redirect out of the way, and then accept the draft, and then tag the redirect for G6. I have been doing this for maybe two or three years. It has the advantage that it doesn't require me to wait for the administrator to delete the redirect first, because the redirect can be deleted afterwards. Other administrators haven't objected, so I assumed that this was one reasonable way to accept drafts when there already is a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that works, I'm just surprised by the 24 hour delay in tagging for G6. Best, L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:L293D I remember noticing the redirect, and realizing that I must have been interrupted after I accepted the draft and before I tagged the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to close this discussion on the DRN talk page, which has now gone from requesting a closure review (which I complied with) to simply relitigating the dispute at hand. I would do it myself, but at this point I would consider myself involved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosguill -  Done Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

I saw you rejected my article because you labelled it as a spinoff of the article on derived algebraic geometry. Although these articles has similar sounding titles, they are distinct subjects. Here's a useful analogy: algebraic geometry is to noncommutative geometry as derived algebraic geometry is to derived noncommutative algebraic geometry. The basic objects considered in these fields are separate. In DNCAG the objects are triangulated categories while in DAG they are derived rings, such as simplicial rings or differential graded algebras. Here's a couple relevant links

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncommutative_geometry#Noncommutative_affine_and_projective_schemes
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_geometry

Will you let me resubmit this article? Is there anything you'd like me to add to the DAG article to try and differentiate the two subjects even further?

--Thanks, Wundzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wundzer (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wundzer - I did not reject your draft. I declined your draft, which means that you can resubmit it. (Wikipedia has its own vocabulary, just as any branch of mathematics or science does.) If you want more information about the draft review process, you may ask at the Teahouse. Also, I advised the merger based on the comment at WikiProject Mathematics. Talk to the reviewer there. I don't know anything about algebraic geometry. It isn't one of the mathematical subjects that I have forgotten, because it isn't part of the higher mathematics that is studied by a chemist. So either discuss at the talk page of the existing article, or discuss at the mathematics project talk page. You would be better off to talk to a real mathematician at WikiProject Mathematics. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon Thanks for the heads up and direction :). I'll go ahead and chat with the folks at the WikiProject Mathematics page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wundzer (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon,

I am writing to you regarding the draft about Saket Modi which was declined by you stating There has been a history of sockpuppetry in the previous article on Saket Modi that has been stubbed down to a redirect. I am assuming by "sockpuppetry" you mean multiple accounts operated by a single individual. I checked through the page history and fully agree with you, that there were multiple accounts involved. I do not know who's behind these accounts, why he's constantly trying to vandalize the article, and what could be his intentions. I understand that he may have violated Wikipedia's guidelines that led the page to be redirected. I tried resubmitting the draft but it got rejected for the subject not being notable. I read Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline and the topic fullfils the requirements, it has been featured in multiple reliable sources including The Economic Times, Business World, India TV. I was wondering if you could provide me with some guidance and help me restore the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:64D:4B17:FCF0:5DBF:953:5E3D (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon, I understand you must be busy. I will be highly obliged if you take out few minutes and help me fix above issue...thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.107.133.105 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put the right sources after you told me put other sources and improve the page can you review it again after editing the page is Draft:Arash Shakour.--FCBlinder (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon, I got your messages on my submitted draft of Billy (Black Christmas). I just wanted to let you know that this was an article before I had it as a userspace draft (My Usual MO for major expansions), unfortunately, there was a discussion about the validity of the article and the consensus was to redirect it into the article the character originated from. The consensus was reached with only 2-3 people voting and improper research was made which resulted in the consensus that there were not enough sources to constitute a separate article. I was just wondering how I would get that decision reversed as there was insufficient research done for the consensus of redirecting it was reached?--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paleface Jack - I will review the history of the article within 48 hours. In any case, you should discuss on the talk page of the existing article. What I will research is whether any sort of formal action in order to approve the split (thus reversing the decision to redirect) is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paleface Jack - Where was the consensus reached to stub the article down to a redirect? I haven't found the discussion. Unless I can find it, my thought would be that I can accept it, and if anyone objects, they can nominate it for deletion, and we will have a deletion discussion. Articles for Deletion is an authoritative method of determining what the consensus is on notability. Where is the inadequate discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the archived discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Billy_(Black_Christmas)Paleface Jack (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paleface Jack - First, you made a typo in copying the URL of the deletion discussion to my talk page, and it didn't link to anything, but I guessed what it was supposed to be and have fixed it and viewed the AFD. That is a nine-year-old AFD. The usual procedure in such a case is to request permission at Deletion Review to create a draft for review. The alternative, since it is so old, would be just to create the page, but as a reviewer I don't think that I should ignore the previous closure. You already have a draft. I will request permission to review it. In that case, we probably don't need to discuss at the article talk page, because DRV is a more public forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tried to find the actual discussion that resulted in the redirect but was unable to find it. Again, thanks for the insight.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pipara (0) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If you're going to move redirects out of the way like this to deliberately nonsensical names and request deletion, could you please move them out of the main namespace? —Cryptic 08:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cryptic - Okay. How would you prefer that I handle these drafts? I am willing to follow a somewhat different approach. The situation is that there is a draft article submitted for review that should be accepted, but there is a redirect to a parent article. I could tag the redirect for deletion as G6 Move, but this would require then that I wait anywhere between 5 minutes and 24 hours to see when an administrator has deleted the redirect, and during the time after the deletion and before I can accept the draft, there is nothing. So I want to accept the draft, which means that I need to move the redirect first. So I move the redirect and accept the draft. If you would prefer that I move the redirect to draft space or user space, I am willing to do that. Is that your request? I can move the redirect to draft space, or to my user space, and accept the draft. Is that what you are asking? If so, okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lourdes has another suggestion above that would simplify acceptance by allowing me to delete the redirect, but it could be otherwise controversial, so I would like know what your advice is on accepting drafts that are blocked by redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes' solution is the one I usually suggest for extendedmovers who find themselves having to jump through complex hoops to get things done, yes. (I don't offer to nominate anymore, though; my endorsement would be of little value.) In the meantime, moving the leftover revisions into draft:, or user:, or talk: while it's awaiting deletion would avoid polluting mainspace. As an aside, admins who G6 a redirect to make way for a page move are supposed to actually perform the move too, but as you've no doubt observed, they usually don't. —Cryptic 15:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cryptic - Okay. I can move the redirects into draft space without renaming them, then, while waiting for their deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my draft for financial company Draft:PayActiv is ready for the mainspace. I was thinking of moving the draft page myself into the mainspace, but I would like to have a second opinion. Could you possibly look over the draft, see if it needs anything else, before it moves to the mainspace? Cardei012597 (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Adhesive Bonding (2) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Adhesive Bonding (2). Since you had some involvement with the Adhesive Bonding (2) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lithopsian (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your message about the deletion of "Political Game Theory". Sorry I didn't see it until now. I'm very old and I don't log in at Wikipedia very often these days. I think that article was probably an obsolete idea for a longer page or a neglected stub from a long time ago. Deletion was probably the right thing. Cheers! wayland (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert,

Do you still have objections to the deletion of this move page? I saw your note on the draft talk page but I wasn't sure if you had taken discussion of this page elsewhere. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz - At this point the stupid redirect has already been moved into neverland, so that its effective deletion is a fait accompli. Go ahead and deal with the silly dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for your prompt response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think the nYT article + the USA today article amounts to significant coverage. ???? DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG - I will look at the NYT and USA Today. If they are stories about the Bezos Earth Fund, I agree. Please discuss at Talk:Jeff Bezos whether to spin out a separate article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG - First, I see that the article has been accepted; I see that it is currently only a stub. That is all right; it needs expansion. Second, I see that I misread the draft as to one letter and therefore three orders of magnitude when I declined it. I read that Bezos had donated $10 million to the fund, which is a non-trivial amount of money that will finance an organization with an executive director who is paid out of endowment, but I have a template that says that not every 501(c)(3) organization, or its equivalent under other national laws, is notable. It didn't say that Bezos had pledged $10 million to the fund. This wasn't a Rockefeller or a Ford; this was Bezos. The size of the founding gift was notable in its own right. I don't know if we should have a special notability guide to that effect or if Use Common Sense (about uncommon endowments) is sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's only 10... adjusts glasses... billion?! Wowsers, that's a lot of money! --kingboyk (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, common sense is better than elaborate guidelines. I could not figure out why you had not accepted it, but that you had not noticed the actual size certainly explains it; had it been $10 million I wouldn't have either. I noticed it especially because I was aware of it from the NYT before I saw the WP article DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:kingboyk, User:DGG - I think that we can have a common-sense idea that won't be in policy but will sometimes be quoted that if a reliable source mentions a billion dollars, it is probably notable.

If you owe your bank a million dollars, you are at their mercy. If you owe your bank a billion dollars, they are at your mercy.

Reviewer: "Hmmm. That looks notable with two billion euros ... adjusts glasses yen? Hmmm. I'll review it more carefully." Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Unreal $30 billion

Well, well. User:DGG and I just encountered an autobiography that claims that the subject is worth $30.4 billion. After this discussion, I thought it particularly appropriate to do a very quick fact-check. The subject exists, and probably did attend Oxford University, and that is the extent of the truth. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute-Kampala

Hello Robert Mcclenon, my name is Sandrah.Akol. The Article was nominated for speedy deletion under category G5, and I have no financial stake on this article. I have done new edits on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ntinda_Vocational_Training_Institute-Kampala Please help me and review this page, for any help is kindly accepted. thank you--Sandrah.Akol (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the ping from WP:REFUND, I'm letting you know that Sandrah.Akol (possibly the user formerly known as Likol Jo) and IP addresses are still at it. In addition to the request at WP:REFUND, my reinstatement of AFC templates at Draft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute-Kampala was undone, and there have been moves and redirects all over the place including mainspace (example). Looks like some blocks and salting may be in order. I'm a bit busy to investigate further atm, but if you need any help please ping me. --kingboyk (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:kingboyk - Thank you. I will look at it, and may request deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:kingboyk - Okay. I have attacked it in two forums, Requests for Page Protection in article space, and Miscellany for Deletion in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've dealt with your RFPP request. While doing that, I found another SPA: Akol Joseph Latif (already blocked). --kingboyk (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:kingboyk- Thank you. My name is Sandrah.Akol, am seriously struggling to contribute African Content on Wikipedia but its an fortunate that most times I donot conform to its policies. Recently I wrote about Ntinda Vocational Training Institution-Kampala, I have been reading about the Wikipedia's guidelines and I believe currently this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ntinda_Vocational_Training_Institute-Kampala#Draft:_Ntinda_Vocational_Training_Institute-Kampala Comforms to its standards. But for any help please kindly don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you--Sandrah.Akol (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandrah.Akol - Stop submitting multiple copies with slightly different names. That only shows that you are trying to confuse the reviewers. We have told you where and how to discuss, and you should discuss rather than just resubmitting multiple copies, and you should discuss with the community rather than asking me on my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! My ID is Zzhu8516. My article is rejected by u as u said it is contrary to the aim of wikipedia which means i copy too much. And my wikipage is deleted now. I know some people rejected my article before but i already changed a lot of words and sentences. This wikipage is cooresponding with my assignment in the uni.So it is super important.Can u tell me what i need to improve as i think Violation Unlikely is below 28.6% now. I think i did not disobey any rules.--Zzhu8516 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably referring to Draft:Triple pelvic osteotomy (TPO) (canine and feline) rather than the red link above. There are no deleted edits in this user's history. --kingboyk (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zzhu8516 - Have you considered editing the Wikipedia in your first language? You are having difficulty explaining what you are trying to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zzhu8516 - Does your university assignment involve including an article in Wikipedia? If so, please have your instructor discuss the assignment at the Education Noticeboard, because assignments involving editing articles in Wikipedia are problematic. If your assignment is to write a paper on the subject, you do not need to submit it for review, but it should still be in your own words and not copied. Please explain your university assignment. In particular, please explain why this draft is important. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask for advice on editing Wikipedia at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!I am Matilda. This topic is about a type of surgery. My cat has the hip dysplasia disease and need this type of surgery. I did a lot of researches on this and i hope my draft can be posted. Maybe i had violated the copyright.But i did not mean to do it. This is my first time to edit a wikipage. For my uni, i am studying a course which asks me to write a wikipage and need to post it. If it is not published or delete or there are any problems with copyright i might get a failure to this unit.So i am so urgent as the assignment is already due. Also, my uni is in a English speaking country and i have to edit in English. I also dont have the right to ask my tutor to ask in the education board. I think i have the ability to do this by my self.What i am trying to do now is that fix all the problems and try my best to let it submit succesfully.That's the reason i resubmitted several time yesterday and i do revised a lot of places .But i am feel worried that i still have not got passed. Could you tell me the reason? I have checked on the https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=User%3AZzhu8516%2Fsandbox that my article have Violation Unlikely under 30%.And it is marked with green which i think it is fine. If u think it is not enough, i still need to make any change,just tell me . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzhu8516 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why things become so difficult. I have revised my article and i am all the way trying to make my article better.The problem is not i violated the poiucy or what my tutor ask is unreasonable. It is that i am trying my best to revise it. I hope my effort could make sense. Or if i violate the policy for once, then i can not make some changes? I will be labelled as a rule breaker and i can not publish any article since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzhu8516 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ANtinda_Vocational_Training_Institute-Kampala&type=revision&diff=941798286&oldid=941797532

Why would you suggest to these users that they should consider bringing things to DRV? How would that be in scope for DRV? I think you should stop doing these random things. Draftspace is for waylaying dubious contributors, and DRV is a high level forum for admin continuing education. There is no crossover. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that your template message links to WP:SPINOUT, but that guideline is about splitting off content from long articles, not creating new content that could be a subtopic of an existing one. It seems a bit confusing, pointing editors there. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul 012 - Do you have a suggestion for how to improve the template message, such as a different guideline? Do you think that the two cases of splitting an article are really that different? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're that different. In the case covered by the guideline, the content currently in main article is split off into a new sub-article. With drafts about potential sub-articles, the discussion would be whether to merge content from the draft into the main article. Having thought a bit more about it, though, I'm not sure I agree that being a subtopic to an existing article should be a categorical reason for declining AfC drafts. The most relevant guideline would be Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages, but it doesn't actually say that the issue must be discussed on the main article talk page before a standalone page can be created. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who has expressed an interest in the Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC, you are invited to join a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Rethinking_draft_space. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a cheeseburger Gale5050 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Rostrevor Old Collegians FC, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i was wondering why this page does not online yet on google search?.--FCBlinder (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:FCBlinder - I will reply on your talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You recently declined my draft submission for the artist 'Anomalie' and I noticed the comment that said I must indicate which of the musical notability criteria is satisfied.

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

I would like to emphasize that my references include Voir, The Jerusalem Post, and 303 Magazine - which has an editorial board. An editor on live chat also agreed with me that these three sources should be viable for the page to be accepted. I believe I have satisfied the first criteria: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" (Wikipedia: Notability (Music)). Could you please iterate what exactly you feel I should do to indicate that the first criteria for musical notability is satisfied? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afunk45 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Afunk45 - If another editor thinks that the draft satisfies musical notability based on the first criterion, my advice is to indicate that on the draft talk page and in an AFC comment, and resubmit the draft. AFC review is done based on what is in the draft. If you and another editor think that it satisfies criterion 1, say so and resubmit the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Robert McClenon:, thank you for reviewing, approving and assessing the Kontoor Brands page. FelixtheNomad (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for reviewing and publishing my draft. This was the first of many contributions I seek to make to Wikipedia and become a part of this amazing community! ElricFullMetal (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert_McClenon, I stumbled upon Draft:Linthorpe Art Pottery, which you declined and where you requested that a discussion on splitting section of the Linthorpe article take place on the the talk page of the existing article. The discussion, however, appears to have ended up on the talk page of the redirect, Talk:Linthorpe_Art_Pottery where no one is likely to see it. Did you intend it to take place at Talk:Linthorpe instead? Ping @Johnbod: who created the redirect. Vexations (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the draft. It's certainly notable, & long enough for its own article. There seem to be 4 editors now who think so, so I'd just do it. Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vexations, User:Johnbod - I've accepted the draft. That appears to have been a mistake on my part about where to discuss, but that is enough discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, thanks! Vexations (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linthorpe Art Pottery, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Preemptory review request. In accordance with Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility, I ask that you strike through your uncivil comments on my talk page, AFD, and XFD. EllenCT (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my post at MFD, not because it was uncivil, which it was not, but because I have reconsidered my ideas on notability. I have replied at Arbitration Enforcement, and am not striking anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	For surviving a swarm of weevils
	For surviving the grand weevil invasion of 2020. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice this?Tvx1 22:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tvx1 - I probably would have seen that shortly, but thank you for mentioning it. I will respond to it when I respond to it, maybe in 24 to 48 hours, but anyway within a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on Kulinski Draft MfD and understand your viewpoint. That might have been the case earlier, but in the edits yesterday and today, the mentions on CNN, Fox, Vice, Guardian etc are substantial. Please see my comment at the bottom on MfD. I hope you will reconsider. Viktorpp (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viktorpp - Did you read the entire discussion at MFD? Did you notice that I entered a statement that Wikipedia should pay a little more attention to Internet celebrities? Since you ask me to reconsider, please re-read. Are you satisfied that I already reconsidered? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your email address mate? I think it's about time we got all this settled.GDX420 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GDX420 - Does your skin (view) include a link called Email this user when viewing a user talk page or user page? If it does, that works. If it doesn't, that is an issue that you could raise at the Teahouse or Village pump (technical). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would email you so that you can reply, but I think that you should get this capability addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I've looked all over my skin. I can see a few gnar scars, a birthmark and a dodgy tattoo from fresher's week 1999 but I can't see any email links sorry. Where would be the best place to send what I have?GDX420 (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GDX420 - Ask at the Teahouse about Email This User. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GDX420 - Maybe you don't have the ability to send email enabled because you don't have the ability receive email enabled. Ask about that at the Teahouse. But you don't have the ability to receive email enabled. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GDX420, go to "Preferences" at the top of your page, then on that page scroll down to "Email options" and tick "allow other users to email me". Robert will then be able to email you. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:SlimVirgin. Was that also why User:GDX420 wasn't able to email me? Does the ability to receive email have to be enabled to enable sending email? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, there doesn't appear to be a connection. I've just tested it by unchecking the option in my own preferences, but I'm still able to see "email this user" on your page. GDX, see Wikipedia:Emailing users for more information. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is connected to the "Allow emails from brand-new users" option? I'd have thought GDX's account was old enough, but perhaps not. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlimVirgin, User:Gdx420 - It says: "Both the sender and recipient must have allowed user emails in their preferences." That confirms my thinking. If the would-be sender, GDX420, hasn't allowed user emails at their end, they can't email me, although I have enabled email. Both users have to have enabled it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've unchecked "Allow other users to email me" in my preferences and I've just sent you a test email via your "Email this user". SarahSV ^(talk) 22:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I have been working on the article for Councilmember Rishi Kumar. A bunch of people showed up and changed a lot of stuff, and submitted a bunch more articles. Can I please have to time to fix it, before it get's deleted. Can you please help me with getting this up. I am doing this in the interest of free and fair elections. --PoliticalEddy (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm writing to ask which is the best way to go about resolving a particular dispute along with some ongoing civility issues. I am asking you because you are the first editor on the Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers list who has made any edits today. I hope I'm going about this the right way and not too much of a nuisance to you. The editor SchroCat and I are in a disagreement about comma use in the article John Davie (British Army officer). I also feel that SchroCat followed me to this article (no previous edits there). I don't know if this constitutes hounding/harassment, but I do wonder if it is something I should bring up. Several other editors and I have experienced civility issues with SchroCat at Talk:No Time to Die. What is the best way to go about resolving these issues? Thanks in advance! GrammarDamner (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GrammarDamner - Well, my first thought is that if this is an issue about commas, it isn't worth making an issue about. I will review the issue in more detail within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, no rush. GrammarDamner (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, request a Third Opinion at the Third Opinion noticeboard, but maybe from an editor who is neither an American nor a Briton. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else already did that, and consensus has been reached regarding the commas. That only covers one of the issues I brought up, but I guess that's that. Thanks again. GrammarDamner (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep bugging you, but I find SchroCat's recent reply to me at Talk:John Davie (British Army officer) completely unacceptable. What is the best way to go about dealing with consistently uncivil behavior? I'm not trying to get this editor blocked or anything, but I feel a warning of some sort is in good order, and as mentioned and pointed out, I'm definitely not the only editor who feels this way. Thanks again for taking the time. GrammarDamner (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (talk) regarding my submission for Criterion Software limited page, I wanted to understand what can be done in order for this page to be accepted? The Criterion Games page (which is a subsidiary of criterion software limited) has its own page. Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWhizz2 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an email address and the link to my user page. I have lots of evidence about paid editing which I am sure will lead to indictments.GDX420 (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GDX420 Indictments for what by whom? McClenon mobile (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article of a health network, I think that this draft should be made its own article because of the fact that this is a hospital within the health network. A great example of another article is Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital being separate from RWJBarnabas Health. The proposed draft is just an hospital within the health network. If you look at UMass Memorial Health Care, the line states "...and the largest healthcare system in Central and Western Massachusetts." As you may know, a healthcare system consists of many hospitals as does UMass Memorial Health Care. Andrew nyr (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew nyr - In that case, this is a split request, and I will put a comment to discuss on the talk page of the existing article whether other editors agree that separate articles are in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know paid editing is very looked down upon, but do you know of anyone who does it well, you know, produces good quality articles in a Wikipedia sense? Or is there a forum or wiki project for sharing best practices about how to comply with disclosed paid editing? I am a very old hand at Wikipedia, but very new to any paid editing and I want to try to fulfill the stringent requirements of disclosure, for example, and I keep doing it wrong. If you know of anyone that does it well, please let me know. Thanks, Integritas888 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Integritas888 - There is a difference between paid editing and the paid collection of household garbage. Both are looked down on. The difference is that someone has to do the paid collection of garbage, because no one will do it for free, and it has to be done. No one has to do paid editing of Wikipedia, because it will be done for free if it needs doing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can set up a forum or WikiProject for sharing best practices, the other paid editors will appreciate it. Whether the volunteer editors will appreciate it may depend on whether you do it with as little stinking as possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew of someone who did it well, I wouldn't let you know. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added over 40,000 edits to this encyclopedia over since 2006 over countless hours, for free. I have created dozens of Good Articles, and contributed to at least 5 Featured Articles. I have won dozens of barnstars, and over 98% of all my contributions have been retained thus far. I do not deserve to be addressed in this manner. Some of us need to eat, and love to help people make articles. I guess the articles won’t pass AfC unless they are at featured status first, but I didn’t know that, I am new to the process. Last I knew, we had a policy of “Don’t bite the newbies”, and I was new to this. They should just ban paid editing entirely if this is the way that paid editors who attempt to disclose and contribute are going to be treated. Integritas888 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Draft:Le Concert Spirituel, - the article was created independently by a different user and IS in Main space, merged with content from the draft. The draft is no longer needed. I don't now how to deal with the situation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gerda Arendt I have redirected the draft to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Pfundt

Draft:Reinhard Pfundt: I found a decent ref for this long-term music professor of the Leipzig Music University, with a premiere of his piece conducted by Masur during the opening of the Leipzig Gewandhaus. The ref has more detail, but I'm tired. Could you please move the article back to article space, where it belonged all the time, imho? It could be improved better in the open, connected to links in articles and to the German Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, User:Gerda Arendt. In the future, if you are posting to something near the top of my talk page, a comment at the bottom would help, but I found your post via the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Was going to approve these after I moved them but looks like you are taking care of it. Thanks for speeding up the process. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:CNMall41 - I will work them off as I work them off. I am about to go to bed, and I hope that I don't see them or read them for the next eight hours, because if I do, those are weird dreams, but dreams are weird. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The more I move, the more that appear. Hopefully they don't appear in your dreams. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles that Starzoner has had accepted contain unsubstituted uses of ((PAGENAME)). I don't think they should be accepted until this is fixed; they are causing a lot of work for plant editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go through them and change them all. Starzoner (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peter coxhead - Okay. I'll start sending them back. Thank you for being polite about this issue. We don't need to create extra work in a labor of love. (It just occurred to me. Is labor of love a double entendre because labor is what happens nine months after love? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know via the talk pages. Starzoner (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Starzoner: this was discussed elsewhere and I thought you had been told; sorry if that isn't the case. All you have to do is to use ((subst:PAGENAME)). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You said Chaeyoung does not have significant coverage in secondary sources, but you didn't explain why. Chaeyoung has received coverage as an individual from multiple secondary sources. Tempo, GQ, Elite Daily, Korea Herald, korea herald 2, IBT India, SCMP, IDN times, IBT Singapore. Surely the GQ and Tempo articles alone are enough to satisfy GNG. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apples&Manzanas - I said to discuss at Talk:Twice (group). There have been statements that she has enough individual coverage to qualify for a separate article, and there have been statements that she does not have enough individual coverage to qualify for a separate article. I am requesting that the community discuss at the group talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange way of not answering my question. I mean, *you* were the person who said Chaeyoung did not have enough coverage to satisfy GNG, and i asked you to explain that...you dodged that question entirely. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also did you even read the draft talk page before declining the submission? Literally no one has thus far said that sources like GQ, Elite Daily, and Tempo don't constitute significant coverage. The draft was declined *in the past* because those sources *had not been discovered yet*. So far, you have been literally the only person to say those sources don't constitute significant coverage, and when questioned about this above you act like you never even said it. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apples&Manzanas - Okay, you are likely right in that maybe I should have given your draft a more detailed review. On the other hand, you are being very undiplomatic if your objective is to get me to re-review the draft. You have now annoyed me so that I am not likely to be neutral. If your objective was to ask for a different reviewer, you will get your request, because I will recuse from reviewing your draft. If your objective was for me to accept your draft as an article, I will recuse from reviewing it, because I am no longer unbiased. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good, my apologies. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you left a comment on the Squadron 42 draft that I was a little confused with. I understand the discussion on splitting Star Citizen with Squadron 42, I opened that discussion but so far there's only been one other person talking it over prior to me really working on this draft. In your comment, it says that upcoming or unreleased games don't generally qualify under notability, but the page you linked to doesn't seem to have any information on that, and there are a few articles (Halo Infinite, Half-Life: Alyx, and Final Fantasy VII: Remake) that are all regarding upcoming releases. I'm just curious to figure out how an unreleased game with healthy coverage (ironically much of it being geared towards its unreleased nature) wouldn't be considered notable. I'm definitely waiting to hear from other editors on the Star Citizen page, just wanted to clear up that part. Thanks! — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 05:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will review game notability to see if games are different from other subjects such as films and books in often being notable before they are released. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seadoubleyoujay - I don't see anything in the game notability guidelines that is different about coverage for games that have not yet been released, but perhaps the game press routinely provides neutral coverage to games prior to release in a way that is different from films, books, or other subjects. My advice still is to discuss the split on the talk page. I would also suggest that a general discussion of games and unreleased games at the Teahouse might be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Question, is it possible to revert this draft to an unsubmitted state while the discussion at Talk:Star Citizen continues? I'd agree with jumping the gun on submitting it for review, I just don't want it to be deleted while the rest is ongoing (I don't really know how all this works in detail). Or would it be best to leave it in the state it's in now, continue improving it and continuing the discussion, and then making the final decision later? — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 19:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seadoubleyoujay - I am not sure that I understand. I think I understand that you want to avoid having the draft deleted, but I am not sure what sort of deletion you are concerned about needing to avoid. I don't think that there is a risk that it is about to be deleted. Has someone posted something to that effect? If you have a vague general concern, you could ask a question at the Teahouse. I am not sure that I understand the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am notifying you that I've created 5 articles in the Salomonia genus and I think they are ready to be submitted. Starzoner (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Starzoner You didn't submit them for review, so I submitted them. You also have drafts in some other genera in various plant families, but I have left them alone, because you didn't ask about them. I am willing to accept any draft on a species with a proper source and a proper binomial name, based on the idea, that I stated yesterday, that if there is agreement on notability, cleanup can be done in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salomonia longiciliata, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert,

Yesterday I submitted a draft submission ^[1], receiving back a notification of decline from you, for the following reason:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article — that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies).

Additionally that:

This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject. Not every business corporation is notable, and this draft does not establish corporate notability.

I would like to state the case that this decline is not correct, under the terms of Wikipedia's rules & guidelines. I will address the points made as follows:

1. The citations provided are to articles which are written specifically upon the subject matter submitted, these are not 'just passing mentions' so much as they provide "Significant coverage" by 'addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no research is needed to extract the content' ^[2]

2. The subject is published in reliable, secondary sources, as the sources are 'third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'... The first source is Bloomberg L.P ^[3] The second source City A.M. ^[4]

3. This draft is not written from the viewpoint of the company, the submission details only factual points relating to the subject matter & is fully cited for all factual points made, as would be expected from an external source's viewpoint. Furthermore the citations are "Independent of the subject" ^[5]

4. This business corporation is notable, given the significant coverage that has been provided by multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources.

5. The submission provides "Significant coverage" in its citations as they 'addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content'.

6. The list of markets that the subject covers is not an 'Example of trivial coverage' on the pure basis that, the list of markets that the subject covers, are the reason for the citations & existence of the subject's secondary coverage in the first place, wholly this would seem 'trivial' had it not been for the 'significant coverage' relating to these subject matters.

IN SUMMARY

'The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability'. ^[6] This has been proven by providing numerous citations (significant attention) from independent sources.

None of the citations, or coverage can be regarded as 'Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article' ^[7] The articles to which I've referred are not paid, nor classifiable as the remainder above. They're provided by independent sources.

Furthermore, the Notability terms state 'The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter' ^[8].

Which of course is the case, multiple independent, sources have considered the topic notable enough to have written and published non-trivial work of their own that specifically focus upon the subject, without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to this topic matter.

IN CONCLUSION.

The Notability guidelines state 'No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization'. It has been proven that there has been Significant attention given to the subject matter by; multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, from outside of its organisation.

The Notability guidelines specifically state that 'A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.'

Therefore, my submission should be approved wholly as the corporation is decidedly 'notable'. In fact, as one of my citations states, the subject is award winning, this is 'notable' in its own right. My submission has provided multiple citations to 'significant coverage' of the subject, from multiple, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject; of which the citations adhere totally to Wikipedia's Notability guidelines & my sources follow the exact points set out in the general notability guideline.

I have spoken to members of the Tea Room & one comment was that the City A.M. citation is of a 'trivial coverage' nature. To rebuttal this, my comment is, the statement is short, stating the company raised 30k. But just because the statement is short, does not mean it doesn't constitute 'Significant coverage' as it addresses the subject directly in detail, as required by the Notability guidelines. This is no different to referring to a famous persons date of birth, or death. A statement, backed up by an independent, reliable source.

Many thanks for your time. The Dolph

Dolphinhouse2019 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see additional discussion of this matter at User_talk:Dolphinhouse2019. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)[reply]

I wish this article will be accepted as a separate article from Manimekhala. This proposed article is a separate article for a Cambodian traditional dance Robam Moni Mekhla while Manimekhala is an article for a goddess in Hindu and Buddhist mythology. Like there are an article for Apsara and a separate article for Robam Tep Apsara (in Cambodia).

The sources cited are the only available references I can find for the proposed article as such English-based books regarding this Cambodian dance is rare although it is a popular dance in Cambodia. The acceptance of this draft article will open it up to other editors who may have access to more photos, sources, and information. As I am alone for this article, I need assistance from other editors.

Please reconsider this draft article! Thanks in advance! Antony Willianson (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antony Willianson - I will review the draft within 48 hours, probably 24 (since there isn't a whole lot that anyone can do other than use the Internet with the lockdown). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Thanks anyway! I'll try to improve the draft later. I hope this will be my second article being approved. This is all I can contribute. Sorry to disturb you! Take care!God bless you. Antony Willianson (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just noticed the Manimekhala discussion mentioned above, and I must say I find your notion of what constitutes article splitting to be very peculiar. I saw your addition of a split tag to the article back in January, but could not understand what the request was supposed to entail. In my understanding (and I believe this is the way most people see it), a split primarily concerns existing content in an article. The tag you placed, saying, "It has been suggested that this article be split into a new article titled Draft:Robam Moni Mekhala," made no sense to me, because the content is already in the target, and there's no existing content in the main article to be split. (In any case, one would want to split into Mainspace, not a draft, and the template doesn't even work with Draftspace pages.)

Picking up from my previous comment at User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 27#Template:Talkspin, I think it would be much clearer to frame the discussion as a choice of whether to (1) create a stand-alone article of a subtopic, or (2) merge the draft's content into the main article. A new maintenance tag would be best suited for this, but if we must choose among existing tags, I'd say it makes much more sense to tag the issue as a merge suggestion from the draft page. In this case, consensus not to merge would equal one to create a separate standalone article. WP:PAGEDECIDE would also be the most relevant guideline to point to. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul 012 - I haven't been able to find a good way to formulate questions of when to create a second article when there is a redirect to an existing article. It definitely isn't a merge proposal, because a merge either converts two articles into one or pulls draft material into an article. A merge tag is often appropriate when someone writes a draft on a topic that already has an article, but the content is somewhat different but overlapping. If there is an article, and a draft is submitted that has the topic of a redirect to the article, I think that the discussion should be on the article talk page. The problem seems to be that the terminology of split and merge causes confusion. Do you have a different idea in general of how to handle these cases? In this specific case I will re-review the draft on the dance. The question seems to be largely one of terminology. Is there a more substantive issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some common cases where a draft has the same title as a redirect, such as the name of an album that is redirected to the article on the artist, or the name of a song or track that is redirected to the article on the album. In those cases, I think it is clear that discussion should be at the parent article talk page. I agree that some cases are less clear. In general, I would prefer to see discussion on a talk page if there is an appropriate talk page, rather than just making a reviewer decision. Do you understand what I am saying? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does seem it's an issue mainly of terminology. Would probably be best to create a new template to cover this directly. It would make sense to discuss cases at the main article talk page, but a more pertinent question, I think, would be when this is necessary. Redirects that used to be articles will need discussion to determine whether the reason for merging or redirecting still applies. But if it's tagged ((r with possibilities)), it could probably be accepted as a separate article straight away. Regarding your album and song examples, I'm not regularly involved at AfC, but if I were, I'd probably prefer to approve and "deal with it in Mainspace". --Paul_012 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul 012 - For albums and songs, the musical notability criteria are detailed and well-defined, so that the draft can be accepted if it charted or otherwise meets a specific criterion, and otherwise can usually be declined. One of the considerations, that you mentioned, is that quite often there was an article, and it has been stubbed down to a redirect, sometimes by formal AFD, sometimes after some discussion, and sometimes unilaterally. In those cases, it really is important to ensure that there is new discussion. In cases where there is no special notability guideline and no previous discussion, it is really just a matter of inclusion philosophy, and that gets messy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention this in my DRN request, but seeking dispute resolution was specifically advised by the administrator who closed Dlthewave's Arbitration Enforcement request against Jweiss11. When you closed my DRN request, were you were that this matter had been referred to DRN from AE?

I'm unable to use an account because I can't enable cookies on the device that I use to edit. I don't know who the other IP is, or whether they have a legitimate reason for editing anonymously, but they're a different person. (It's helpful to compare our respective geolocations.)

I would appreciate you reading the various comments in the Arbitration Enforcement request where this matter was referred to DRN, if you haven't already, and reconsidering your closure in light of that. This dispute has been churning on the talk page and at AE for the past month, so it's very unlikely that kicking it back to those places will produce any further resolution. 2600:1004:B14E:63FD:A8E7:E862:289A:18DD (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at the Teahouse whether there is a way to edit from a registered account without cookies. That discussion is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Are_Cookies_Required_for_Registered_Editors%3F . Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the response there, are you willing to reconsider your closure? 2600:1004:B14E:63FD:A8E7:E862:289A:18DD (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What device are you using that doesn't accept cookies? I can use cookies on a smartphone, or a laptop, or a desktop. Where are you and what device are you trying to use? McClenon mobile (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The device is theoretically capable of accepting cookies, but for personal reasons I can't enable them. If you aren't willing to reconsider your decision, you can just tell me that. 2600:1004:B14E:63FD:A8E7:E862:289A:18DD (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DRN Closure Reply

I have reviewed the DRN request as you requested. I see that Race and Intelligence has been to Arbitration Enforcement at least four times within the past month, as you said. That, in itself, doesn't incline me to try to mediate a dispute that keeps going back to conduct forums. I understand that you understand that User:Barkeep49 and User:El_C specifically referred the parties to DRN, but that isn't exactly what Barkeep said. What User:Barkeep49 said was that the parties should have used dispute resolution. Barkeep further said that could be an RFC. With multiple parties coming from multiple directions, RFC is more likely to be an effective method of dispute resolution than is moderated discussion at DRN. You still can formulate an RFC.

After reviewing the explanation of the need for cookies and your personal inability to enable cookies, I do not find a compelling reason to allow anonymous participation in a moderated dispute where moderation is not likely to work anyway. In the absence of an explanation that goes into excessive detail (for which I am not asking), it sounds as though, first, you may be able to find a device at a library or Internet café, second, the "personal reason" sounds like the device isn't really yours, third, I don't know which of the other parties to the dispute you might be.

Do you want assistance in formulating a neutrally worded Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that 2600:1004 has been a productive contributor to the discussion for quite some time and so if that was the only thing preventing this from being handled at DRN I'd ask for reconsideration. However, I will affirm that while DRN is part of the dispute resolution process, Robert McClenon is correct that I suggested an RfC as the proper kind of dispute resolution for this matter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has just opened a RFC on a closely related question. As I understand it, dispute resolution requests typically aren't accepted while there's a RFC underway, so at this point I'm willing to accept the closure.

I have one other question, though. Is it a requirement for RFCs to be neutrally worded? That is what's stated here, but this particular RFC is obviously not neutrally worded, including a statement that I have "persistently advocated for lending credence to white supremacist sources".

@Barkeep49: you are the main person who's monitoring behavioral issues on these articles, so I would particularly like your guidance on whether it's acceptable for the opening summary of a RFC to make these kinds of allegations. 2600:1004:B159:F772:1F3:3811:8D45:C868 (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs should be neutrally worded. I will let User:Barkeep49 or another administrator decide what should be done about a concern that an RFC is non-neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding this note that you left on my talkpage, user:Rosiestep#I have unreviewed a page you curated, please let me know why you unreviewed it. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the right link to where you left the message, User talk:Rosiestep#I have unreviewed a page you curated, and here's a link to the article in question, Evelyn Campbell (actress) (my 1,390th new woman's biography). --Rosiestep (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosiestep - A small issue, which is that the way her dates were formatted made it appear to say she is still alive. That should be changed to b. 1867 or to a ? . Go ahead and review it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to "review it again" as I didn't review it to begin with, e.g. I think all of the articles I create are put into auto-reviewed status. Is this something you can do? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosiestep - I've marked it reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert_McCleon I just saw it after a break. Thank so much! Antony Willianson (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Robert_McClenon I suspected the intention of this user Paul 012 from Thailand. After trying to prevent the draft article : Robam Moni Mekhala from being approved as a separate article, now he proposed many of the photos I uploaded to Wikipedia ( including those used in the draft article) for DELETION! Some photos I got them from the facebook page (Hattha) after getting the permission from the owner, so I have to download them from her page & uploaded to Wikimedia Common with her named attached ( I complainted this to the owner of the photos, she said she will try to upload the photos by herself tomorrow, but she never join Wikipedia before). This Thai user proposed many other photos I uploaded to other article for deletion as well! Some photos, I took it by myself from the National Museum of Cambodia and 1 photo, I asked my friend to took it when he was on a trip to Angkor Wat temple! So I get them via FB which is convenient. I am a new contributor/ editor, I dont know much about Wikipedia. Help me! I dont know that technical stuff! Antony Willianson (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antony Willianson, User:Paul_012 - I have completed my review of Draft:Robam Moni Mekhala. I have declined the draft at this time because it is difficult to read because the English is not good. It needs a heavy copy-edit for grammar, style, and usage. A history merge of the draft into the existing redirect is then needed. (I am not recommending a merge into the article on the goddess, but a history merge into what is currently a redirect from the title of the dance to the goddess.) If you have any further questions, you may ask them here, or on the talk page of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert_McCleon Quite disappointing after the draft article is declined for the second time. I'm not a native speaker of English, thus limited in the language used! I did my best for the contribution anyway! I'm completely blank who can really help me over here! Will find somebody to help and resubmit the draft again! Sad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony Willianson (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antony Willianson - Isn't it in article space at Robam Moni Mekhala and tagged for copy-edit? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. McClenon mobile (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert_McCleon,thanks for your help. But can you please add some sections from the second submission of the draft as it contains more information such the characters' costume,...etc & could get help from the team as well. Really appreciate your assistance! Take care & stay healthy! God blessed! Antony Willianson (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, Thank for information!  Antony Willianson (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert_McCleon! I can not view or edit the draft: Robam Moni Mekhala, is the draft deleted? So, disappointing as I spent lot of times working on it! Or I have to re-draft it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony Willianson (talk • contribs) 08:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antony Willianson - It should be there at Robam Moni Mekhala now. Please do not edit the draft for now. It is waiting to be reworked by an editor whose native language is English. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antony Willianson - If there is information from another version that needs to be added to the article, go ahead and add it. The article is tagged for copy-edit and is waiting for a copy-editor, so that any additions will also be copy-edited. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what I can do to improve the article. I also want to let you know that "Let's Fall in Love for the Night" is Finneas' most successful song. It reached the top 20 on the alternative songs billboard chart and number 26 on the rock airplay. Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for pointing out the perceptual gap - should have picked this up myself but it is all good learning. Much appreciated. --2A02:C7F:DC5B:C700:8C6C:BD8E:A197:2CE3 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi McClenon,

I got your review of my article "Alex Ajipe" and I acknowledge your observations on how to make the article better. 

I'll go ahead and add more citations from independent and reliable websites to further improve the standard of the article.

I also want to reaffirm my commitment towards following the rules guarding Wikipedia editors. I have never taken com compensations for editing or creating articles on Wikipedia.

Thanks. Thisissegun (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across it, and wanted to run reFill on it for a second, but don't want to create an edit conflict. (I wasn't intending to review it.) --Gryllida (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gryllida - Go ahead and make any minor tweaks to it. I will deal with it within a few hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted it as is, and then fixed the headings; sometimes in a case like this I fix them first, and then accept. This is simply a decent quality translation from the frWP, not a machine translation. (Iddon ot know why the contributor didn't copy the hreading format, but it's one of the things that don't matter. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert McClenon, I take the view that the Jack Harman article meets the following criterion: "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument" as demonstrated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Harry_Jerome He also meets "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" as a recipient of the Order of British Columbia Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheijiashaojun (talk • contribs) 06:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert! Hope you are well? Thank you for your feedback, I'm very new to Wikipedia so I'm trying my best here. I have deleted the draft for Reyko as the article is already published. And I have seen your nomination to delete the article so I have checked the criteria for notability in music and the band Reyko meets the following: 1. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart 2. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country 3. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. 4. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network Please, reconsider. But also, please, feel free to improve the article or give me any advice? Thank you! --Bluevespa8 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• MariaAnnelovesyou2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Joseph G. Giambra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Robert,

I am unfamiliar with the Wikipage process and hope you will excuse my query here if it does not follow the appropriate protocol. I reach out to you because you left me a message that the tone of my article was not acceptable. I made edits to comply with the request. I just popped in to add an IMBD to the article, but it seems to be moved or deleted. Can you please give me more information on that? Where is Draft:Joseph G. Giambra? There is some comment about copyright infringement, but no requests were made regarding further information. While I do not have a copy of the deleted draft, my recollection is that the photos were taken by me or owned by Joseph Giambra. Or links to other websites such as IMBD. The content was my own.

Please advise as to how I can view the draft.

Thank you.

Maria MariaAnnelovesyou2 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MariaAnnelovesyou2 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MariaAnnelovesyou2 - Your draft was deleted by administrator User:WilyD because it was a copy of copyrighted material. You may discuss with the deleting administrator, but copyright infringement is never restored. You may rewrite the draft in your own words and resubmit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• MariaAnnelovesyou2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Joseph G. Giambra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks so much for the reply, Robert. How can I determine what part he thought was infringement? and how do I get a message to him? I can't find a talk page for him. MariaAnnelovesyou2 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MariaAnnelovesyou2 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MariaAnnelovesyou2 - If you are having difficulty with talk pages, ask for help at the Teahouse. You may post a message at User talk:WilyD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright infringement was probably of the text of the draft, because copyright to images and copyright to text are handled by somewhat different procedures. We normally will allow the use of copyrighted pictures with the consent of the photographer or other copyright owner. We cannot allow the use of copyrighted text by "ordinary" permission, because our copyleft releases the text for reuse by anyone else under a similar license anywhere in the world, and that is usually not the way people want to give permission. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember everything, but a quick check reveals some text was copied from this website: http://www.perniente.org/actors.html; there mqy hqve been others. WilyD 09:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is plethora articles on Danish Renzu with released films? https://www.amazon.com/Half-Widow-Neelofar-Hamid/dp/B07XLW36SX And work with Academy winning actor https://bookandfilmglobe.com/film/movie-review-the-illegal/

How is this not worth of wikipedia? Instead, will appreciate your feedback on the page to get this approved

User:Cinephile786 - Please sign your posts. Also please follow the advice to discuss at Draft talk:Danish Renzu. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get what that dude is saying here that the title should be? Am I overthinking what he's saying or did he somehow make it more complicated? I don't want to feel dumb and ask the guy to clarify again. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sulfurboy - I'll clarify, since this is high school math (and I've forgotten college math). He is saying that the title should be Modular forms modulo p, which is like Modular forms modulo n, except that n is an integer and p is a prime integer. It could be Modular forms modulo 3 or Modular forms modulo 5. You aren't overthinking it. He changed the nature of the complexity from 2 to any prime number. Everything beyond stating what the modulo is gets into discrete higher math, which I haven't forgotten because I didn't study it. (I have forgotten differential equations.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, See, I was a liberal arts major in an effort to avoid any of this. I accepted the page with the suggested name, although I probably should have considered a different approach when I saw the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolastic functions, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits, you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really do that? Starzoner (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Starzoner - Yes and no, I guess. I certainly couldn't have written about hyperbolastic functions. They are differential equations, and I have forgotten all of the higher mathematics that I learned fifty years ago. I was reviewing Draft:Hyperbolastic functions and asked other reviewers to review it. I declined it based on advice from mathematicians. I then got a further comment that the text should be in article space somewhere, either as Hyperbolastic functions or somewhere else, and found that comment, that it should be in article space, persuasive. So I resubmitted the draft, and then I reviewed the draft and accepted it. As a result of the fact that I was the last submitter of the draft to review, the script put the message on my talk page, saying that the draft had been accepted and was Class C. So did I really do that? I guess yes and no. There is also a similar message accepting one of your plants, but that is for a stub. Does that tell you more than you wanted to know? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant “song article” Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway that nirvana books like “Nirvana: The Recording Sessions” be used as a reference for this article. I’ve seen it been used on other nirvana song articles. Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beatleswillneverdie - I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse, but I see two separate questions. The first is whether Nirvana books can be used as references. The second is whether a particular song satisfies a musical notability criterion. The two questions are not directly related. Beyond that, I would ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Markomarkovic1980 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nemanja Jovanovic (basketball) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, I would like to see what is the issue of not accepting the article for Nemanja Jovanovic. I see that you refer to Notability for sports but there also exists part for College athletes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NCOLLATH&redirect=no which can be applied in this case as Nemanja is part of NCAA team staff. The article is somewhat similar to this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdan_Karai%C4%8Di%C4%87 and if this one is accepted I don't see the reason for not accepting Nemanja, too. Thanks for the review and I hope you'll accept this additional explanation. Best regards, Marko

Markomarkovic1980 (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Markomarkovic1980 - College athletic notability guidelines essentially say that the subject should meet general notability guidelines. If you think that he meets general notability guidelines, explain on the draft talk page, and resubmit. I would suggest asking the advice of other editors at the Teahouse. If they think that he is notable, I will accept. I am not really interested in whether other college coaches are listed, because that is known as Other Stuff Exists, and maybe the other stuff should be deleted, or maybe it should be kept. So I suggest discussing at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it on the teahouse Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to the tea house Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told by other editors that a song article can be notable if the references are good. I have done more research and found books and other websites explaining the origin of the song. Please check it out and see if it is good to resubmit. Beatleswillneverdie (talk

User:Beatleswillneverdie - I suggest that we discuss at the Teahouse. My reading of the guidelines is that a song is normally considered notable if the song satisfies the special notability guidelines by having charted. Discuss at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through some public company pages and noticed you were the last editor to review this page (Draft:Information Services Group) and saw that it was a public company that could use some cleaning up. I think the subject meets WP:N with the citations that have been added to the page but it has been under review for a long time. Is there any way you could re-assess the page when you have a moment? Edproms (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edproms - I have reviewed the revised draft briefly, and it does not appear to be a significant improvement. I can either decline it again or leave it for another reviewer. There is a myth in Wikipedia about references. The myth is that any draft will be accepted if enough references are added to it. References are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the acceptance of a draft. If you want the opinions of other reviewers, you can ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have rejected the submission from my sandbox. I understand most reasons for your decision. I do not understand why the info in my sandbox has been erased -- this does not make sense to me if I want to improve the text. Can you reinstate the sandbox content? David.Tomanek (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:David.Tomanek - I did not remove content from your sandbox. I moved your sandbox to Draft:David Tománek. It is still there. Your sandbox has a link to the draft, so that you can either go from your sandbox to the draft, or do something else with your sandbox. The draft will remain at Draft:David Tománek but may be subject to normal editing. Does that answer your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary grades and ecological guilds. A grade is a paraphyletic group of organisms that lack the innovations of a derived group. For example fish are a grade, lacking the legs of tetrapods. Herptiles are a grade, lacking the hair and homeothermy of mammals, and the feathers, wings and homeothermy of birds. Non-bat, non-cetacean mammals could be seen as a grade, though anthropocentrism gets in the way of that. Green algae are a grade, lacking the derived features of land plants. A guild is a collection of species with similar ecological roles, such as a carnivore guild, a browser guild, a grazer guild, a scavenger guild, and so on. Algae in general can be seen as a guild of photosynthetic organisms. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lavateraguy - Thanks. Ok. A guild is people or organisms who do the same work. A grade is what you pass thru in school or evolution. McClenon mobile (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please recheck the draft I have created. I have put way more references that are both reliable and good. Please check out Draft:Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through the Strip. Beatleswillneverdie (talk)

Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol

User:Beatleswillneverdie: Here is a long partial answer. First, as I noted above to another editor, there is a myth in Wikipedia about references. The myth is that any draft will be accepted if enough references are added to it, or the right references. References are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for acceptance of a draft. The first part of my conclusion is that the track does not satisfy musical notability because it has not charted or satisfied another of the criteria for inclusion. The second part of my conclusion is that the track does not appear to satisfy general notability. Any argument that you make for acceptance of the draft should be based on general notability, because I think that it fails musical notability. I personally do not want to try to evaluate whether a song track passes general notability based on added references.

However, second, since you are being so persistent, I am willing to do either of two things for you. I advised you to discuss the rejection with other editors before resubmitting. You have chosen to persist in asking me. I am willing, the first option, just to get you to stop bothering me, to remove the Rejection from the draft and allow you to resubmit it and have another editor review it. I do not plan to review it again. My guess is that another editor will decline or reject it, but you can try.

The second option is that I am willing, based on your request, and on your opinion, and not my review or judgment, to move the draft into article space, without offering my opinion as to whether it will pass a deletion discussion. If you ask me to accept your draft without a review, I will accept your draft without a review. It is likely to be nominated for deletion. In that case, I am willing to remain neutral in a deletion discussion.

Do you want me to remove the Rejection and let another reviewer review it when they are ready? Do you want me to remove the Rejection and move it into article space (accept the draft) based on your request, without reviewing it myself? Your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go for the second option. Beatleswillneverdie (talk)

Done. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

Thank you for reviewing our submission!

I'd argue that testguild.com definitely is a noteworthy independent source, as it is one of the top resources in the software testing space. There are also a lot of other third-party references in the article, including an article in the "Computer Standards & Interfaces" journal.

What kind of source is it that you think is lacking, exactly? I would love to assist in digging up more resources, but I personally think this should be good enough?

Thanks in advance and best regards,

Simon Simon Aronsson (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simon Aronsson - I will try to research this within 24 hours, but it would help if you would identify the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon Sure! The draft article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:K6, and just to give some additional "meat":

- Ref 5, testguild.com is very well-considered in the software testing space, and, at least in my opinion, counts as a credible third-party source.

- Ref 13 is a study of scalable rest applications published in the journal "Computer Standards & Interfaces" where k6 was one of two tools used, which has since been quoted in an article on wiley.com

Also, I just want to be transparent with that both I and the original draft submitter work for Load Impact, the company providing the open-source stewardship for the k6 project. This is also the reason why we we submitted to the AfC. Simon Aronsson (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle reminder :) Simon Aronsson (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simon Aronsson - I have not reviewed the sources for the draft in depth. The draft reads as if it is written from the company's viewpoint, which is expected because it is being written from the company's viewpoint. I have not reviewed the sources, but the draft does not convince me of the need to review the sources in depth. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon Thank you for taking time to go over the article! I fully agree with your feedback and has since removed the content that came across as pitchy and rewrote the rest aiming for a significantly more neutral tone. I've also re-submitted the article for review. Simon Aronsson (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rober McClennon,

Thank you you have read and commented on the Brand activism draft I did. (here is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brand_activism?fbclid=IwAR0u5fzm8wvFjtD_Xb-3ZVAFNwSVxsG63w65YPRSpseUFORCN7gtJb8MKJ8 ) I see the draft is declined, for it looks similar to the Consumer activism article, but they are completely different concepts.

While Consumer activism focuses on consumption and how goods or services are produced and delivered, Brand activism is a marketing and business management process by which businesses concern for the communities they serve and the world we live in.

Consumer activism seeks to change the way in which goods or services are produced in order to make the production process safer, more ethical, more environmentally friendly, etc.

Brand activism seeks to change society's biggest problem (such as economic injustice, education, healthcare, immigration etc. issues), using the economic power of the business. The Brand activism claims that today for the companies is not enough to offer good product and price, but they have to understand the long-term needs of the society and to solve global problems as economic problems, regulations, corruption, global warming, discrimination, education, healthcare, and etc. using the economic power they possess.

Can you, please, give me advice on how to proceed? Thanks, Ivan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan gurkov (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ivan gurkov - I will respond within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ivan gurkov - Here are my initial comments, and I may comment further. First, I didn't decline your article. As you know, User:WikiAviator did. I disagree with both you and WikiAviator. On the one hand, I agree that you have made a case that brand activism is not the same as consumer activism, and so I think that WikiAviator was too quick to decline your draft, in particular after I had said that the evaluation should focus on the differences. However, you aren't likely to make any friends with the AFC reviewers by being too quick to give a trout to the one with whom you disagree. You are asking multiple reviewers for help. They may notice that you were quick to put a big fish on the talk page of a reviewer. I agree that you have made the case that brand activism is not the same as consumer activism. At the same time, your draft does not have a neutral tone. It strikes me as being "in-your-face" in its support of brand activism. If brand activists are seeking to "solve the global problems", that is the sort of marketing buzzspeak I would expect to see to sell a product. The fact that you are promoting a strategy turns my level of discomfort with the phrase down from 10 to 8. So if I had reviewed your draft, I probably would have declined it for a different reason than WikiAviator. So address the tone issues. You might want to find a WikiProject that will help you work on the draft. If you want advice in finding a WikiProject, the Teahouse would be a good place to start. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thanks, but I still doubt if solving global problems is part of corporate social responsibility. Honestly I've never heard of the term in this draft, so I suspect if this is made up of. Also, apologies that I have to review in breakneck speed due to a busy real life, so sometimes I don't list out all the reason, if I find one reason, I decline it right away unless there are so many problems that I'm not comfortable if I don't tell the author. Sorry for that. However, this article is still a duplicate. Regarding the trout, I don't mind people trouting me but this is not used in the right occasion.

Sizzle! The trout you used to slap another Wikipedian has been gutted, roasted over the coals, and served with tartar sauce. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that, just like the trout in this picture, your trouting of Wikipedians is overdone.

Happy editing for both of you! WikiAviator (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClendon Robert, thank you for your advice on more facts and a neutral tone. It will really help me write better. As for trout, I never knew it was too daring to use. I assumed it was normal functionality, I apologize to WikiAviator for using it hastily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan gurkov (talk • contribs) 03:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote me a comment at 15:43, but already at 16:57 you closed the discussion. Isn't a Dispute resolution noticeboard meant for discussion?)) David_Gerard is cunning when he says that he doesn’t know about Insilico's CEO Alex Zhavoronkov. He initiated the removal of the article about this scientist in 2017. Did I expect any help from David?))

I’m very surprised by your behavior. Why do you not want to check the sources and text style of my draft and suggest corrections for it? I insist on checking my version because it was written on WSJ- or Science-level sources. It's unlikely that anyone will find sources better than these.

My persistence is my character, 🙃 it's not about paid editing. In fact, if your employer needs it, Wikipedia doesn't need it. – non my case. My contract says that I get paid for creating a draft for Wikipedia, and not for publishing and saving the article. But I’m sure that all editors – volunteers or affiliates – should follow Wikipedia rules in the same way. Now my situation looks like discrimination (but I understand that this is caution).

It’s unpleasant for me that people look at my work through prejudice. I have a review-flagg in Russian Wikipedia, I'm a true Wikipedia pop-scientist and tutor, I assist in investigations against unscrupulous editors. The quality of Google translator allows you to easily check this. Why should my word weigh less than the word of David_Gerard? (This is a rhetorical question, no need to answer.)

I want a substantive discussion about draft quality, and not about my paid editing. Please help me phrase a request to the community at the Teahouse. --Birulik (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Birulik - Look up discrimination and discriminate between sense 1 and sense 3. We do discriminate between paid editing and volunteer editing. Discrimination is only considered invidious discrimination when it is based on suspect categories. The employment status of an editor is a category for which we are allowed to discriminate, that is, make a distinction. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new person in an established community, English is not my native language, I openly support what most users oppose. This is not like an equal condition for me and you. And you know that your position is stronger now. Don't tell me that this is not discrimination in its general sense. 💁‍♀️ If you want to argue about lexical meanings then let's go into my language – I will continue with pleasure.))--Birulik (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither I nor any other editor are required to check a draft in detail. Besides, you didn't ask me to check your draft, and so you shouldn't fault me for not volunteering to check your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard was created to solve issues. You have taken the responsibility to sum up the disputes therefore you must understand the essence of the problem, in my case – to check a draft in detail. You didn't do it yourself and didn't let other people join when you closed the discussion. Please do not engage in discussions where you are not ready to help, especially because of prejudices.--Birulik (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you need help in formulating a request at the the Teahouse for advice.

I will reply to your request in more detail within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This is an honest answer.--Birulik (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• From the claims she makes on her user page and her user data (all projects), Birulik is hardly a new user. Her English is excellent and her suggestion to continue this discussion in another language is very inappropriate. Her comments at Talk:Insilico Medicine are borderline inflammatory and/or personal attacks at David_Gerard whom she also accuses here of being 'cunning'. FWIW, I concur with David's removal of all the promo-speak and McClennon's DRN closure. Wikipedia volunteers are not here to provide WP:BOGOF or any other assistance to editors who use Wikipedia to earn money. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mostly agree with User:Kudpung, but will comment on his comment on her suggestion to continue the discussion in Russian. It was not inappropriate, but sarcastic, and, on the Internet, nobody knows that you are being sarcastic. She was correct in noting that I was parsing the meanings of an English word to a degree of precision that requires en-5, and she is at en-4, and her English is better than that of some Americans. (It is probably also better than that of some Britons.) I saw a sarcastic humor in her comment about lexical meanings and languages. I agree that her comments about User:David Gerard were uncivil. I will also note that she is changing the nature of her request at DRN after the fact from a request for mediation to a request to review a draft, and that DRN is not a forum for requesting review of a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• All my opponents make personal complaints about me and my choice of work instead of formally discussing claims to the text on three discussion pages. I see we are done here.))--Birulik (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Birulik - You may publish a Request for Comments to ask the community to choose between your proposed text of Insilico Medicine and the current text. At least User:David Gerard and User:Kudpung have reviewed your proposed version of the article and have stated that they prefer the existing version. They are not required to comment in detail on your version. It is unfortunate that you choose to characterize editors with whom you disagree about article content as your opponents, but that is your designation; I did not see them identify you as an opponent. Again, RFC appears to be the most appropriate way to resolve the content of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.