Forgive me if this sounds stupid but I'm unsure of how to reply to your comment. Is there a template I should use? It doesn't seem like the normal 'replyto' is appropriate in the section. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carlobunnie - In the future, when replying about a draft, please tell the reviewer what draft you were replying to. I review a lot of drafts, and do not always know which one you are writing about. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: my apologies. It's the Stay Gold by BTS draft. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I just wanted to ask if you would be able to remove the 'find sources' notice from the editing page that you added to the draft when you reviewed it back in July. I've significantly expanded the draft since then and don't think it needs to be there anymore. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you so much for reviewing Draft:Jane Geddes (art historian). I've fixed the date of birth inconsistency and it would be so wonderful if you were able to re-review! Thanks so much KerstingFan (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:KerstingFan - Was she born in 1950? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon yes indeed 26 April 1950, I've got the citation from the peerage website. KerstingFan (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:

• The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
• More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
• Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
• The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
• Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences.
• On 17 November 2019, the first edit from outer space was made in the mobile visual editor.
• In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I didn't want to copy and paste the article, I just want to put a template to create the 1974 Romanian Cup Final, but appeared a problem in real life, so I just saved it without modifying anything. Another user already changed the article, it was just a mistakeRhinen (talk)

Hey, Robert McClenon. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert McClenon/Archive 30,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to present this page for review, if you want to review it. Starzoner (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joseph Kramer (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphan disambiguation page whose nav function is served by hatnotes on Josef Kramer

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JHunterJ (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to replay at every point you noticed in my talkpage, first you said that the references does not show that the subject qualifier for wikipedia article,

Answer: i tried to search for an official sources in the english language and i didn’t find so i had to translate an official arabic pages into english by google translate

Second, you said that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources,

Answer : yes i agree that it must be better but i have nothing to do, this is what i found, also the sources are reliable in Arabic so there are no excuses

Third, the HungerStation website is popular in saudi arabia and it must be published at all the times, there is an example of an article that does not have any criteria and it’s still existing, it’s Talabat you can check the article and find many mistakes and imperfections that does not qualifies for a wikipedia article, so my question is, when will my page gets published ? And if there are defects why don’t you give the rest to contributors to edit and do their job ? I think this discussion is not that worth. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia where around thousands of editors can correct, fix and add sources from their diligence. I call on you to get the page published again and i would be thankful to you if it happened

Edit: Talabat article has only one reference so should HungerStation also have one ? Aziz bm (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know I’ve ask you plenty of times for help with people deleting articles I make but this one doesn’t make sense. Break My Heart Again. The users who want to delete it are threatening to take me to admin. What do I do about this? DarklyShadows (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cooper_Barnes_(Actor) since he is actually a notable actor, yes he is notable enough to have a wikipedia page since he starred in both henry danger, danger force and other movies and tv shows.--Freewayman 2000 (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freewayman 2000 - Make that argument at the MFD, not on my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MFD?--Freewayman 2000 (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Freewayman 2000 see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cooper Barnes ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 03:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Deadwyler74 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lonnie Deadwyler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deadwyler74 (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC) i would like to edit and republish Lonnie Deadwyler page[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon I wonder if you are still in charge of reviewing the Draft:Ross Petty (pediatrician). If so, is there´s an estimated time to get an update? I submitted my draft for review 3 weeks ago and haven't received any updates

Thanks LJimenez2004 (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I see on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Gillespie_(music_producer) you have labeled him as a music producer. There are no articles or sources that cite him as a producer. I have cited sources and publications labeling him as a music manager and executive. May you correct where he is mislabeled in parenthesis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouncecouncil (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this presumption that the article is about a music producer is what led to you declining publishing of this article. Bouncecouncil (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bouncecouncil - I am not entirely sure that I understand why it matters whether he is considered a music producer or a music executive. What is the difference? Do you think that he qualifies for an article based on musical notability criteria or general notability? If musical notability, which criterion? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon Great questions. Thank you for opening a discussion on this. I’ll start off first by mentioning that I used the article on music manager and executive Scooter Braun. I used this article as a reference because Scooter manages similar recording artists as Mark Gillespie and also runs businesses and philanthropies in a similar fashion. That being said, neither of them would be classified as a music producer. The reason being is their roles as music managers and executives includes managing artists’ business deals, sponsorships, bookings, and day to day operations so that the artist can simply focus on being “artistic”. Music producers, on the other hand, are themselves artists. Music producers oversee the entire production of a song. This includes song writing, song arrangements, song recording, mixing, mastering, and in some instances distribution. A music producer may either have their artistic hand in all the aforementioned or may also delegate duties to sub contractors. The music producer produces musical works. The music manager is all the business that surrounds the music. The draft I published about Mark Gillespie would not fall under Musical Notability because the subject is neither artist, band, composer, or any other creative. Thank you for hearing my argument. I hope this helps in your consideration of reopening the draft for submission. Bouncecouncil (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bouncecouncil - Well, before I read the current version of the draft, I will say, first, that I am aware that many editors use an existing article as a basis for a new article. I do not think that this approach is useful, because it only works if the subjects of the two articles have the same notability. Second, if, as you say, he is not a music producer and so musical notability is not applicable, then general notability is the only applicable test, and that is a difficult guideline to follow, so I am not optimistic that I will accept a draft for a music executive. Music executives are businessmen, and they are mostly run-of-the-mill, and tend to get deleted at AFD. I will look at the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I don't understand well what you exactly mean by 'project'. I am a native speaker of a Western Pahari language, and it is my interest to collect information about these languages. The identity of these language is very less known among the general public due to various reasons. I am here only to put on whatever I know about these languages, so that speakers of these language can have some sense of appreciation for there mother tongues and as well as familiarise others. There is a huge misconception that these languages are mere dialects of Hindi or are small in number or a single language with name Pahari. That's why I started creating page for each of these languages and updating other pages. I am planning to create two more pages: Gaddi and Saraji under Western Pahari as well as pages on kolong(sTodpa) which is a Tibetic language spoken in Lahaul Spiti, Himachal Pradesh. Updating each page with atleast some basic info on grammer and vocabulary is my next step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik9hil (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nik9hil - I meant to ask whether there is a coordinated activity, such as a WikiProject, by multiple editors. You appear to be saying that this is not an activity by multiple editors, but that you are individually taking the initiative to document as many of the Western Pahari languages as you can. If so, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon - Yes, it is an individual effort. Your welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik9hil (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created again after being rejected from AfC repeatedly. See User talk:OscarWongLara1999 Enigma^msg 21:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shaherose Charania on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your quick reply, I wanted to see if all my article was correct. I will edit all the ancient article then.

Regards,

Ezk (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ezk - I did not compare the articles in detail. I saw that the two articles were about the same person and that each of them contained some information that was not in the other article. I see that you have merged the articles. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to address some of the reasons you recommended the AEDP article for speedy deletion. 1. The notability of the topic has not been disputed. I'm sure WP: PSYCH will vouch for that (the APA video series, mentions in popular press and influence in the field as noted by inclusion in numerous research studies).

2. I did add a good deal of new sources - the article is re-written around new the 3rd party sources. All the sources after 2016 are new.

3. I did state my COI in the talk page. I was told that its not necessarily against neutral point of view to be a therapist who uses this model and has attended trainings.

4. If this is notable and it wikipedia needs it, then it would be terrible to blow it up just to have someone re-write it: they would be using the same sources and saying the same things. why not leave it out there for someone else in WP; PSYCH to work on whenever someone can get around to it. There are only so many ways to say what something is, why it is, how it is etc...

Carrieruggieri (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to biogeograpist who recommend the redirect, the re-direct was meant to be temporary until the article was improved . Carrieruggieri (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carrieruggieri (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One other point is that I had been waiting for someone from WP:PSYCH to review it or take it over as suggested by biogeographist but no one has since May. I would have continued to wait but fiddle faddle suggested I go ahead and submit it (he responded to my request for a pre-submission review). Carrieruggieri (talk)

Hi Robert McClenon, Hope you are doing well. Need your attention here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dev Mohan, as you recently rejected this draft. DMySon 05:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DMySon - Well, I didn't Reject the draft. I declined it twice as not meeting acting notability, which requires multiple significant roles. The subject had one significant role. The subject still has one significant role listed in the article that it is up for AFD. I will recommend a Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert I respectfully disagree with your comment. I added/rewrote an entire paragraph cited from a front page New York Times article where Mr. Chase (and his team) were a primary focus. I then added several recent podcasts and blog posts. I also edited texted to focus more on Mr. Chase directly. This feedback was added to address the notability objection. Mr. Chase meets the notability requirement. He conceived and executed the marketing for arguably the most famous software product marketing effort and product in industry history. He was a central witness in a landmark anti-trust case. He led multiple other efforts for some of the most famous Microsoft products (Office, MS-DOS, MSN). When he left Microsoft it was an above the fold front page Wall Street Journal story. He was one of the top executives and most famous people from Microsoft - one headline I cited called him a "Microsoft Legend." He has consulted or been on the board of major companies. He is interviewed frequently in the press. He has just released a book with impressive reviews so far. I have examined the entries for his Microsoft colleagues and they are almost all less complete and frankly in most cases less notable so it feels like there is lots of inconsistency in the standards.

I am pretty new at this and trying my best but it feels like I address the feedback and get no credit for doing so. I would appreciate reconsideration and welcome advice.

Thanks Phillipbach33 (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phillipbach33 - I said that my Rejection did not mean that Chase was not notable but it did not mean that he is notable. However, the changes that you were making to the draft were not addressing the questions about notability, and were also not addressing the question about whether you have a conflict of interest. I would be more inclined to reconsider my decision if your statement above seemed neutral, but your statement above reads as if you are writing about your employer. I am prepared to discuss at the Teahouse. I strongly suggest that you address conflict of interest when you discuss at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert. I went to the Teahouse but don't yet understand how to discuss this with you there. I will try and figure it out. Phillipbach33 (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Soumyajit Bhar, a Ph.D. scholar at ATREE, Bangalore, under the supervision of Dr. Sharachchandra Lele. I, along with a few of his other Ph.D. scholars, Ms. Roshni Kutty and Mr. Amit John Kurien have decided independently to create a Wikipedia page for Dr. Lele (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bharsoumyajit88/sandbox). We are aware that there is a mild conflict of interest, but we have put together a page based on the materials available on him in various publicly-verifiable sources. Dr. Lele is a globally renowned scholar in the field of environmental studies and he meets the first criterion of notability for academics, because their papers have been cited more than 6000 times and his World Development paper is in the top 10 most cited papers in the journal.

I have the following questions/guidance:

1. Being new to Wikipedia, I have mistakenly created a duplicate page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sharachchandra_Lele). I want guidance on how to delete this. I want to keep the sandbox one.

2. Please help me resolve the error in the #26 reference.

3. I have addressed all the comments given after the last submission to the best of my abilities. Please let me know if there is any further scope for me improve it.

4. I want some guidance on where to mention the declaration of this mild conflict of interest while I am submitting an article for review. May I include this at the beginning of the article itself?

Awaiting your response. Thanks in advance.

with regards, Soumyajit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharsoumyajit88 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bharsoumyajit88 - One draft copy has been deleted. I have removed the notice that the sandbox is a duplicate. Also, put the conflict of interest declaration on the talk page of the draft, not on the draft itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Talk:Santa Claus#RfC about the wording lead section of the article. Félix An (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for review and approval. Ever since I began looking at the food allergy articles, it irked me that among the eight most common food allergies, fish (and shellfish) did not have their own articles. Researching for the draft led me to some interesting facts, including that skin testing for fish allergy has false negatives because fish collagen in not in the standard set of compounds being tested. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:David notMD - Does that mean that we were missing two articles, or three? Fish allergy and shellfish allergy are unrelated to each other except in both being allergies, but is shellfish allergy one syndrome, or two? After all, crustacea and mollusca are both called shellfish, but are not much more closely related to each other than they are to bony fish. Does the allergen in shrimp happen to be the same as the allergen in mussels, or different? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 28239537 states that tropomyosin as an allergenic protein is present across crustaceans (shrimp, crabs, lobster...) AND ALSO MOLLUSKS (mussels, oysters, scallops, squid, octopus), and may be responsible for cross-reactivity to dust mites, cockroaches...! Some of the other crustacean proteins, such as arginine kinase, are also cross-reactive to some mollusks. Based on this, and on the general identification of 'shellfish' as one of the eight common food allergens, my opinion is that one article would cover the topic. David notMD (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to get you involved, but since you are a long time NPP reviewer, i may need your editorial advice here.I recently created this stub article, that has now been tagged for CSD as A7. Do you agree with this assesement? Just to seek an external opinion. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Talk:Eliud Kinuthia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Talk:Pratik jadhav111/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. –User456541 11:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User456541: User:User456541 - Do you remember what this was? It must have been a page that I had previously moved. I do see that I previously moved a sandbox by this user into draft space and declined it. But the draft that I declined is still there and is not spam, just crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon! Thank you for taking the time to look at the page I created: William Woodward and noting that it will need to be disambiguated from the deceased artist of the same name. I am new to Wikipedia and I am hoping that you might give me a few pointers in this new article creation process. I would like to ensure that I set up for success, as best as I can hope to be, when the article does get formally reviewed. If you have the time, any suggestions or comments would be most appreciated. I also noticed on your talk page here that the page Articles for Creation has been suggested and I wonder if this would be a better avenue for my article to be reviewed and published? Thank you for your time! Best, EArvaWeb (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon! I saw that you have previously contributed to this article before: Draft: Kevin Andrew Tan. Would you mind if I ask for your further assistance to move it to the mainspace? COI issue in this article has been fixed and there seems to be no existing issue anymore. I find it odd that it's still pending for a month already. It is now up for review and I believe it should be published by now. Thank you so much. 119.94.2.42 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How has the conflict of interest been taken care of? Has it been declared, or has it been determined that there is no conflict of interest, or has it been neutralized? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not just you. the IP solicited two other editors with the same request to by-pass AfC and move the article to main space. I left notes on their Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon and David notMD, I've been patient with all of you and to the editors who gave their input to improve further the article because I believe these remarks can help us move forward with the article and I truly appreciate these. But I find these remarks, especially on the talkpage of the article, quite bothersome. I am confident that we have followed every policy that needs to be done and we also asked plenty of times on how we can further improve this article to improve its notability. Like I said before, all of the accounts associated in this article are ALREADY DISCLOSED as PAID EDITING in the talkpage. Now regarding the IP Address, I use this because I get banned every time I use an account because afterwards, I get banned again due to "sockpuppetry" which I completely understand but how else can I reach out for help in the editor's talkpages if I get banned all the time, right? I hope you guys know where I am coming from. Apologies for this long rant but I believe it needs to be said. We just really need help on improving this article, I just don't understand why things get more complicated. Please note that I'm just new to Wikipedia that's why we are always reaching out for help. I hope you understand. Thank you. 119.94.9.169 (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do understand enough to know a few things. To begin at the end, you are not new to Wikipedia if you keep getting blocked for sockpuppetry. You are not new to Wikipedia if you are a banned editor. But I will continue on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Robert McClenon:, If I'm not mistaken, it is not correct to delete this page.

• The rules say that

If this draft is resubmitted without being reworked, it may be nominated for deletion.

This draft has already been draftified twice as undersourced. If this draft is moved into article space again, it should be nominated for deletion.

This event is a violation, please notify the user and restore the article.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) - What article? Do you mean Damed Imanov? I did not delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes you did not delete this article, I want to ask you to restore it.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) PLEASE REVIEW MY submission, all the sources are reliable and Surabhi Prabhu is a notable model actress. she has a verified Instagram and IMDb profile . I have made necessary changes . please check . I will be happy to change anything if you suggest . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatti (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram and Imdb are not reliable.McClenon mobile (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me that Instagram and Imdb are not reliable as I thought that would help . She has all the leading papers like The Times of India[1] , Deccan chronicle[2] articles on her , I have attached only two articles , there are many articles from reputed Newspapers on her . Still you doubt her notability. She is very popular in modelling as well . Her Tv presence in series is also well known . This was my first submission ever , can someone help me edit this topic so that I understand my mistakes and further don't repeat in my next topic . please help in my edit and bring this topic to the main space please. Google has all her credentials, I have tried to research as much as I could . please help , please add or delete whatever you feel is unnecessary from the draft of Surabhi Prabhu. PLEASE HELP !!

User:Boatti - Please ask for advice at the Teahouse. Maybe someone there can give you advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatti (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert! Could you please help me fix the problems with my draft? I have multiple references about Rishi Kumar and I have tried to incorporate them into my article to demonstrate notability, as requested. By submitting my drafts I did not intend to annoy the reviewers, and I am very sorry if I did. I was merely trying to fix the references to the article draft and get the article published. Could you please provide some help on the matter? Or do you think it is not possible to write a Wikipedia article about Rishi Kumar until (or if) he actually wins his election? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeinsanjose (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joeinsanjose - First, articles on candidates for Congress are very seldom accepted if the subject was not already notable before receiving the nomination. so it might not be possible to get an article about Kumar accepted. Second, I am aware that you were not trying to annoy the reviewers. Very few editors try to annoy the reviewers. However, you did submit drafts eight times in 24 hours, which is inherently annoying to reviewers who are also volunteers, and who keep getting two copies of the same thing back on the same queues over and over again. It might have been a good idea to slow down and ask for advice or help. At this point I suggest replying at the deletion discussion about avoiding getting both copies of the draft deleted, rather than asking how to fix anything else. At this point your main problem is that your drafts have been tagged for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want bring your notice here, every club has a fan group now a days, but that does not matter that it passes wikipedia guidelines most importantly WP:SIGCOV and WP:GROUP. Without fulfilling these guidelines we cannot keep these kind of articles. I agree with that.The article Manjappada, fan group of Kerala Blasters FC was first created in 2016 and deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manjappada, failing SIGCOV. Again it was recreated in 2018 and redirect per discussion at 1, failing SIGCOV along with failing per G4 and G7 of WP:CSD. And recently it was recreated again in May 2020 and deleted per G4:recreation of deleted page, G5:creation by blocked user.

However, if we consider the first deletion of Manjappada was basically for not having significant coverage. And the latest article created was atleast four times the size of the 2016-2018 article. Its well structured than before and has coverage in TOI, The News Minute, FirstPost, AsianNet News, Sportskeeda, Goal.com, New Indian Express. I just want to ask you why the draft for the article is now protected by admins.Yoy were in favour for the deletion of the draft..Please kindly explain to me the matter. Shahoodu (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shahoodu - Explain what? The redirect is protected due to edit-wars. Discuss with the protecting administrator, User:GB fan, or some other administrator. Or don't discuss it. I am not sure what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused, are you declining it solely due the comment left by the banned user? Is there any way to get this article on the mainspace as I think that notability has been proven by the sources provided. Can you please help me?(Oinkers42) (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:(Oinkers42) - I made a mistake in not noticing that the comment had been made by a sockpuppet of a banned user. The comment is still valid that not every species needs an article, and a considerable amount of electronic blood has been shed over the notability of the mythical beings, known as the Pokemon Test. I am willing to reverse my decline. I am not ready to accept, but would suggest that there should be discussion at WikiProject Pokemon. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have my issues with the Pokémon Test, as I feel it is really exclusionary and especially mean to fictional works and other media, specifically Pokémon. I do, however, understand why it is there.(Oinkers42) (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for you feedback on my recent draft - it's helped me learn quite a bit about Wikipedia.

One of the pieces of feedback on the draft was about notability and significant coverage. The draft had citations from several reputable independent sources including The AP, Outside Magazine, GeekWire, The Denver Post, a government website, and more - 16 sources in total. Nearly all of these articles are directly about the company or its founder/CEO in relation to the company. This coverage appears equal to or greater than similar companies that have live pages. Was the feedback here suggesting that the sources themselves were inadequate? Or that the sum of their coverage did not meet the notability standard?

The other issue outlined was POV, "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." Each point of coverage was from the independent sources discussed above, only the introduction of the company's core functions (what it sells) is sourced from the company. Since I have a (disclosed) COI, I wanted to keep the draft very factual. Does this feedback mean I should try to write more about the company's impact? There are some published independent articles from notable sources that cover unique aspects of the company business model that could be included. How else might the POV be improved to be more neutral?

Thanks, Msklar12 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

I completely understand why my draft for the 2020 Meath Senior Football Championship was declined by you. I had created the draft in June and it was awaiting review. However, last week, another user created the same article and was obviously in a position to publish it immediately without requiring a review, making my draft redundant.

I was wondering if there was any chance in getting another of my drafts reviewed (Draft:2020 Meath Intermediate Football Championship)? This is a similar article to the one declined by yourself (it's the competition grade below) and, as of today, no one has published this article. I'm eager to be able to create articles on Wikipedia having made a number of edits already. But obviously it'd be a bit disheartening if I spent a long time on two separate articles only for both of them to be made redundant while awaiting review due to another user creating their own article. If this draft can't be reviewed, I understand. Thanks.

Meathkildare (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rugby-league-100 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alex Foster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there - I am trying to create this page about alex foster a rugby league player - however you declined the page because it already exists. However that page is for another rugby league player also called alex foster, this is not the same person - How can I get the page up for this individual of the same name? Is it possible to change the name to Alexander foster?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alex_Foster#Background_%26_Career

Thank you

Rugby-league-100 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it has voice work recording done. That foes not satisfy wp:nff, ?Starzoner (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, are you just taking a break or have you burnt out and moved on? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I overlooked your edits there from earlier today. My bad. Sorry for the interruption. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:TransporterMan - Sometimes I forget to look at DRN for 48 hours, but I don't think this was one of those times. I jumped into the Britannia dispute because it looked like it could be handled if someone took it immediately, but that if they kept on going back-and-forth quickly, then someone would probably be uncivil and it would get sour, so it would required quick intervention to tell them to listen. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon, About Draft:Ali Mansour, a notable actor

• 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

- yes, his role in the series Napoleon wal Mahroussa , his role in the series Saraya Abdeen , and in IMDb and elcinema.com.

• 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

- yes, An actor and influencer with more than 200,000 followers on Facebook.

• 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

- yes, promoting to Egypt, Tour guide and influencer here.

• Ali Mansour On the largest Egyptian news sites. a notable person independent reliable sources 1 2 3 - radio interview On the official channel , television interview.
• all i have write in the Draft have a source.
• and You can use Google Translate to translate the titles and content of the sources in Arabic.
• Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.40.50.90 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi Robert McClenon, I'm very sad, 3 Drafts are not accepting because i am ip and not editor, all have sources, And they refuse for the same reasons. Everyone rejects drafts, nobody helps, we try hours, and they easily refuse in seconds. 1-Draft:Sherif Salama, 2- Draft:Napoleon Wal Mahrousa, 3- Draft:Ali Mansour. -41.35.85.111 (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your review and feedback of the Anne Smith artist page. I have added a new journal source, and removed the wikipedia links to collaborating artists. So there are now reliable sources of National Gallery of Australia (Australian Government), Australian Art Gallery (NSW Government), Sydney Printmakers (Industry group), and OZ Arts (Industry journal). I've also run error checking on the citations which found no errors. Hope that all helps for the resubmitted review request.

Shazjones (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Shazjones[reply]

I felt it worth AfD and analysing the refs to seek to prevent re-creation. I'm flagged the images on Commons as well. I had a feeling we might coincide with edits. Fiddle Faddle 15:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timtrent - With an analysis of the references that does not support notability, of course, it should go to AFD, which, among other things, puts your analysis of the references on record. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have taken the liberty of superseding your PROD with the full ref analysis and then popped over here to apologise for doing so

I suspect there may be pressure on the editor to create this piece. They have uploaded many pictures to Commons. I have requested evidence of permission or each one Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, and foremost, thank you for your recent action on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Kamala_Harris I think the way that you have collapsed my comments highlights that there are conduct issues here, and someone needs to step in and focus exclusively on the context. I do think other editors have commented on conduct in the DRN, but have done so in a way that make it not as easily collapsible. This is more of an observation than a call to action. I do think that the dispute needs a volunteer to work on the dispute itself. I don't really know how to get attention on that. Your page notice suggests the dispute resolution talk page, I will go there. Rklahn (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User: Robert McClenon,

I am speaking on behalf of my professor Mr. Frank E. Wicks, the creator and developer of the Wicks Thermodynamically Ideal Fuel Engine. He requested to initiate a conversation with you upon rejection of his Wikipedia page. We need your attention on the following talk page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Wicks_Thermodynamically_Ideal_Engine_Cycle which was professor Wicks attempt to address your comments on original research. Professor Wicks truly appreciates your volunteering work and Wikipedia's commitment to make peer-reviewed material available to the world. Here's a quick summary he prepared.

"The motivation for Wicks to define the ideal fuel burning engine started in the 1970s with concepts for more efficient space heating. It would lead to practical inventions and many presentations and publications. It also begged the question of what is the maximum efficiency space heating system. It would be comprised of an ideal fuel burning engine driving an ideal heat pump. Carnot defined the ideal heat pump as a function of indoor and outdoor temperatures, but Carnot does not define the efficiency of an ideal fuel burning engine. Thus Wicks proceeded to derive the efficiency as a function of the maximum combustion product temperature ${\displaystyle T_{hot,max))$ and the ambient temperature ${\displaystyle T_{cold))$. It is notable that fuel burning engines have powered civilization for three centuries, but an ideal equation and the corresponding three process cycle was not published until 1991. This efficiency equation also defines the ideal bottom cycle for a combined cycle engines and for heat engines that harnesses hot water from a geothermal source."

The talk page includes multiple attachments relevant to this work as well as references made by independent researchers on the Wicks cycle. We hope this work will help you re-evaluate the original content and provide us with a feedback on how to improve it.

With appreciation,

user: Lebbaro Lebbaro (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello [[User: Robert McClenon]

I'm not sure where to add on the dispute page, following your latest guidance. Please note the POV tags on the Britannia page, which were inserted and partially triggered the dispute you're moderating, have been removed (again) by one of the people involved in the ongoing debate. This is neither ethical or correct, given what Wiki says about when to remove them:

You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

None of them are true and I'm not going to add them again myself (I can't) or ask anybody else to. However, if this dispute is to be dealt with fairly, then surely both sides needs to colour in between the lines.

I hope this will be addressed, Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert, I removed the tag for a couple reasons. First, there is no real POV issue among reliable secondary sources because there are none to support the claim. Second, because there is consensus that there is no issue between editors who aren't banned from the page. I believe either of these satisfy the removal criteria, but would appreciate your thoughts if you disagree and would be happy to revert myself. Thanks, PAVA11 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:PAVA11 - The two accounts that were advancing the plagiarism claim have been blocked as suspected sockpuppets of each others. The removal of the tag was appropriate. The dispute will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it requires any additional follow-up since the accounts are blocked, but the Google user image at the top right of this screenshot (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Tvcameraopworksforsky.png) uploaded by SethRuebens appears to match this picture of Krushkoff from his website (https://www.britanniatvseries.com/communities/6/004/013/671/866/images/4636722622.png). Oops. PAVA11 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 3 August 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, "Rewaj Chettri".

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! JMHamo (talk) 16:01, 4 August 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, "Windlass Steelcrafts".

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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

I was unable to fix up a spelling mistake I made in my Draft Title, which was corrected, This is why there maybe Two Items with similar titles,

I Seem to be getting unclear interactions with Wikipedia Editors to the Point I am having to add more and more references.

I referencing everything through Official Belgium Defense site and referencing through this to actual Belgium Military unit home pages and facebook sites and news articles

for your consideration

Kind Regards

Exsap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exsap (talk • contribs) 04:35, 5 August 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, "Najing Technology".

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! JMHamo (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Robert_McClenon Thank you for your feedback on the draft article Draft:Robert Hart. While working on this draft for my paying client, TruAmerica Multifamily, I accidentally posted this under an account I no longer use. I thought I had deleted this version. I then reposted it here: [[3]] under my paid editing account, which you will see at the end of this note. I want to avoid the appearance of trying to game the system. It was truly an accident on my part. Can you advise me on how to proceed? Thank you in advance. 71.165.173.10 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC) FYI, I also responded on my draft page. Thank you again.[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:National Rally on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2c.Pathik (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anirban Bandyopadhyay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wrote an article Draft:Anirban Bandyopadhyay and you reviewed kindly. Following your advice, I made major changes. I wanted to know if you have any further suggestions for editing the article. I have listed point by point how every single concern of yours is addressed. I would very much like to get your kind advice. I submitted the article for your review 32 days back. I thought to drop you a message, if you could get some time to give feedback on my effort. 2c.Pathik (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Robert,

I need a review update of Evan Luthra.

I added independant, relevant, and centralised sources to the page. Also, I removed deprecated ones like DailyMail.

Admissibility criteria of Wikipedia for particulars requires at least 2 relevant sources where the subject is the main element. Thus, I think he meets this.

Thanks Fayssaloss (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fayssaloss - There are myths in Wikipedia about sources, including a myth that the addition of more sources is the way to get a draft accepted. References are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a draft to be accepted. Notability is not merely a matter of more sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I see that you have been editing for a while after I responded to your message. Maybe you didn’t notice it? I was just wondering if you had some suggestions about how to be promoted to admin. Thanks Spawnrec (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, in case you’re really busy, I just thought thought I would leave a friendly reminder that I asked you a question. Thanks. Spawnrec (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can help here; the first step is to make many more than 200 edits; the second is write some articles; after that it's time to consider having some activity on the discussion boards. It normally takes about a year. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spawnrec - But writing some articles does not mean copying a draft that another editor wrote. What you did with William Berlind is really a little too close to plagiarism. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert,

Thanks for bringing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDevelop to our attention. The draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GDevelop was started by the GDevelop community and contributors back in May and has been iterated on since then. We're unclear as to whom made the other stub article, but have submitted a proposal for deletion so we can migrate the community draft and retain the revision history.

Let me know if I did something about this incorrectly. Thanks! Trayal (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trayal - That looks like a reasonable approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trayal, you prod'ed GDevelop, so the draft version can be moved there, but you can just edit that page as you see fit. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Soetermans. I agree, but I think the main goal is to keep the revision history of the draft due to the effort the rest of the community put into it (so as to retain their revisions and username). While I could just easily take the content of the draft and copy/paste it over to the live article, I think that would lose that revision history, correct?

(talk) hello Robert sir, why did you only see youtube? don't you see those big articles over me ??? [4] [5] please review once sir and allow this article. it would be so much appreciable to you Teamvish (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G’day Robert McClenon

I write to gauge your thoughts about a proposal to change the nonmetal categories appearing in our periodic table from {reactive nonmetals} and {noble gases} to {coactive nonmetals} {halogen nonmetals} and {noble gases}

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Context. There has been some discussion about nonmetal categories at WP:ELEMENTS.

I suspect most active members of that project (including me) would agree to divide the reactive nonmetals i.e. the nonmetals other than the noble gases, into two relatively clear and self-descriptive categories. However, since the WP periodic table was created, we haven't found a good way of doing this.

I caveat the expression "relatively clear" by what we say in our periodic table article:

"Placing elements into categories and subcategories based just on shared properties is imperfect. There is a large disparity of properties within each category with notable overlaps at the boundaries, as is the case with most classification schemes."

That said, didactically speaking, the use of "natural" classes or clusters to organise information supports content processing.

In Wikipedia history, the categories of "other nonmetals" and halogens are the two most enduring nonmetal categories used in our periodic table. That was until we started complaining about what a non-informative category name "other nonmetals" was.

Now, the halogen category is consistent with the traditional aspect of teaching the periodic table by contrasting the alkali metals with the halogens.

Long story short, we don’t currently have a halogen category because we weren't able to satisfactorily characterise the other nonmetals as something other than {other nonmetals}. So we decided that they and the halogen nonmetals would collectively be the reactive nonmetals.

Developments. A couple of articles in the peer-reviewed literature have prompted me to revisit this question. The first is "Metals are not the only catalysts", in Nature. The second is "Organising the metals and nonmetals", in Foundations of Chemistry (disclaimer: 1, authored by me; 2, the scheme I propose is not the same as that in this article).

The upshot is that the other nonmetals can be characterised by their:

1. tendency to form covalent or polymeric compounds;
2. prominent biological roles;
3. proclivity to catenate i.e. form chains or rings;
4. multiple vertical, horizontal and diagonal relationships;
5. uses in, or as, combustion and explosives;
6. uses in organocatalysis; and
7. dualistic Jekyll (#2) and Hyde (#5) behaviours

The first six properties of the nonmetals in this part of the periodic table are documented in the literature. #7 is an observation by me.

Coactive. In light of properties 1, 3, 4 and 6, I suggest the term "coactive nonmetals" would be a good way of referring to the other nonmetals. The remaining nonmetals (F, Cl, Br, I) then become the halogen nonmetals, thus restoring the pre-eminence of this category. Here, we show astatine as a post-transition metal since condensed astatine is expected to be a full-fledged FCC metal.

"Coactive" means, "acting in concert; acting or taking place together". That seems like a good adjective wrt the covalent compounds of H, C, N, O, P, S and Se. For their polymeric compounds, e.g. of H, N, O or S, the connection is to the linked nature of their repeating structural units. That is how the literature tends to deal with the nonmetals, except that it has no common term for the first category. There is also the catalytic conation of "coactive".

The literature. Bear in mind the expression coactive nonmetals is not found in the literature.

That said, the complementary term "coactive metal" is found in literature, in the following senses:

• "…adding a coactive metal (such as Pt, Ir, or Rh metal)"
• "The same set of experiments was performed in presence of other co-active metal ions Fe +2, Fe +3, Co +2, Ni +2, Mn +2, Cd +2, Ca +2, Mg +2…".
• "It is of great interest and challenging to improve new catalysts that consist of any of those components and new active metal component (ie co-active metal, promoter)."

There are several other references in the literature to "co-active" elements, materials or substances, including manganese, iron, nickel, cobalt and plutonium.

In the endeavours by WP:ELEMENTS to nail the other nonmetals, we will have now gone full circle from the original {other nonmetals and halogens} → {polyatomic nonmetals and diatomic nonmetals} → {reactive nonmetals}. Now we have a putative categorisation scheme for going from {reactive nonmetals} → {coactive nonmetals} and {halogen nonmetals} that would fulfil the worthy intentions of our predecessors.

Question: Is "coactive nonmetal" a neologism or is it a descriptive phrase, c.f. "coactive metal"? If there are coactive metals does this suggest there are coactive nonmetals? The other nonmetals category is well enough seen in the literature. The covalent-polymeric, biological, catenative, interlinked, combustive/explosive, and organocatalytic properties of the nonmetals in this part of the periodic table are documented in the literature. Historically, and as noted, the "other nonmetals" category is the most enduring nonmetal category used in the Wikipedia periodic table, until we started complaining about what a non-informative category name this was. Do we now have enough content, in pursuit of a better encyclopedia, to support a change back to a binary categorisation of the nonmetals as coactive (formerly other) nonmetals, and halogen nonmetals? ♦

User:Sandbh - I apologize for the delay in responding. My first comment is that asking whether 'coactive nonmetal' is a neologism, or a descriptive phrase like 'coactive metal', misses the point. 'Coactive metal' is a neologism, and is descriptive anyway. I never heard of coactive metals when I was studying chemistry in 1966 through 1969. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that the controversy about what goes under Y should be based on the chemistry of La through Lu and not on Ac through Lr. The elements between barium and hafnium all have chemistry. Many of the elements between radium and rutherfordium don't have chemistry. If the element doesn't last long enough for its compounds to be measured in the usual fashions, talking about its chemistry is a game more than a science. For that matter, measure the solubility of francium astatide in water. We know that francium astatide is a simple salt like sodium chloride only because we know what its elements are. It doesn't have chemistry in the classical sense. Okay, the lighter actinides do exist long enough to have chemistry. But the matter of how to arrange the table should depend on the lanthanides. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thanks. I wasn't far behind; 1968–1972 were my high school years. Like you I'd never heard of coactive nonmetals, nor coactive metals for that matter.

The real issue, as I see it, is a gap in classification science terms. So, after applying the most popular categories found in the literature to the periodic table, the remaining nonmetals occurring in this part of the periodic table have been referred to by a motley range of names such as biogen nonmetals; carbon and other nonmetals; CHONPS nonmetals; intermediate nonmetals; light nonmetals; nonmetals (does this mean that F, Cl, Br, I are not nonmetals?); organogen nonmetals; orphan nonmetals; other nonmetals; and quintessential nonmetals.

Perhaps the most popular of these is other nonmetals. That said, whereas a category name is supposed to be descriptive and informative, "other nonmetals" (H, C–O, P–S, Se) is uninformative, and a non-defining-characteristic name.

Given such a schemozzle, it seems like a small, not unreasonable, step from "other" to "coactive". The meaning of coactive is supported by reliable sources. All the properties of interest are set out in the literature. No new ground in chemistry will be broken. The topic is notable.

This may be a rare case which meets the exception provided for by our neologism policy…

”In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.”

…not to mention WP:IAR, in pursuit of a better encyclopedia.

Further, as I understand it, WP:NEO is about articles, not articles setting out concepts. Here I mean that the content on other nonmetals, or coactive nonmetals, will form a section of our nonmetal article, not an article of its own.

WP:MOSWTW adds:

”Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non-, anti-, or -like to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend undue weight to a point of view. For instance, adding -ism or -ist to a word may suggest that a tenuous belief system is well-established, that a belief's adherents are particularly dogmatic or ideological (as in abortionism), or that factual statements are actually a matter of doctrine (as in evolutionism).”

Here, the co- prefix is a common one e.g. coaxial, co-operate, coauthor.

I seem to be faced with the fallback of the unhelpful and uncontroversial term "other nonmetal", or the logical alternative of "coactive nonmetal" and—as I see it—unproductive excitement about neologization. Could we not do better than that?

Hopefully what I've set out here sheds some new light on the situation.

On group 3, I suggest there is no universal solution. Context rules. For example, the actinoids may be relevant in a table that includes considerations of predicted chemistry. Or an Lu table may be suited showing the underlying symmetry of the Madelung Rule, and so on. I feel the key issue is to explain the context for the particular form of table under consideration. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert: It seems like a completely generic term would be pre-halogen nonmetal since that is what they are, no more no less. Your thoughts? thank you, René (Sandbh (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Robert. While I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 371 as delete given the consensus present, I wanted to note that I agree with your defense of accepting it at AfC. Thanks for the reviewing you do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		for your cheerful and not at all ironic advice on calling a spade a "tool for the extraction of earth from excavations" while delivering difficuit reviews Fiddle Faddle 19:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving my draft, Draft: Freedom (Robeson magazine), your consideration. I think that referring to it as "Robeson magazine" does not accurately describe it, on a couple of grounds.

In the scholarly articles that make up my references, Freedom is mentioned six times as a newspaper, once each as a monthly newspaper, journal, and paper. I have never seen it mentioned as a magazine except in this Wikipedia article title, as you've changed it. I observe that the Wikipedia article Freedom (newspaper), concerning "a London-based anarchist website and biannual journal... which was formerly a monthly newspaper" has no compunction about tying monthly and newspaper together, rather than describing it as a magazine.

I note that Wikipedia's Paul Robeson article describes Freedom as a periodical, and the Wikipedia article on its successor publication Freedomways describes that publication as a journal.

Also, I think that an exclusive association with Paul Robeson is too restrictive. He is listed last in the Editorial Board of the first issue, not listed at all with the Editorial Board in the second issue. The third issue does not have a staff listing at all, while Robeson listed as Editorial Board Chairman in all of the others that I've reviewed. He was not the editor; that was Louis E. Burnham. The publisher was Freedom Associates.

I understand the difficulty of creating an unambiguous name for the article. The Freedom (disambiguation) article lists two publications under Press:

• Freedom (magazine), a Scientology publication; and
• Freedom (newspaper), a British anarchist newspaper.

So I offer the following alternatives:

• Freedom (monthly newspaper)
• Freedom (journal)
• Freedom (African-American newspaper)

I am concerned about some of the other edits. When you removed the hidden label from two infobox items, you introduced some inaccuracy. The staff under hidden|ta1=left|Other artists were editorial cartoonists, not photographers. They were important to the publication, with its visceral illustrations, but the template does not otherwise allow their inclusion with accuracy. Removing hidden|ta1=left|Other writers includes contributors who may or may not have been staff writers; I have not been able to determine their exact status.

I wondered about your removing weblinks in article body. I have seen this in other Wikipedia articles, which is why I thought it was a legitimate practice. If you would, please refer me to the appropriate reference.

Finally, I think your italicizing the quoted material in the lede paragraph is not in keeping with Wikipedia style. I have never seen quotes italicized like this, and plan to remove the italics. An ordinary double quote is used quite widely in American English for direct quotation, where italics are used in reporting speech only for emphasis (aside, of course, from book titles and such that make their way into direct quotation). If I am mistaken, please refer me to the appropriate reference.

Thank you for your efforts and your consideration. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Library Catalog likes "African-American newspaper" not "magazine"

Further to this argument, WorldCat characterizes Freedom's genre/form as, among others, African American newspapers.[6] So it would appear that the best title for the article would be:

• Freedom (African-American newspaper) Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project A (disambiguation), 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ellis (disambiguation), 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be yet another account creating the same content. See User:Bhage06/sandbox. I cannot figure out how to add Bhage06 to the current SPI. Eagleash (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eagleash - Bhage06 has been CheckUser blocked by ST47, so it has been taken care of. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert, I have requested help to write an article or page in order to submit my article again. I am not sure if you can help me or guide me to find assistance.

I have already wrote the article but it was deleted in two opportunities, even when i used real and original pictures, all the information about the artist was based on the his history, taking notes from books, interviews and other articles.

Here is the link of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adrian_Arguedas_Ruano Draft:Adrian Arguedas Ruano.

I am really confuse about the way I have received such a negative feedback about this article.

I am an Art promoter and I am trying to add a good article to the Wikipedia encyclopedic data, at the same time, I am trying to included this artist because, I have read articles about other contemporary artists, that I have known, but they do not have the half of importance and trajectory of this artist I am referring to, never the less, Wikipedia have published articles or pages about them.

I have never wrote an article like this before, but i would like to learn and maybe I would be able to continue adding and editing information about more artist in the future.

Joannych Joannych (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joannych Have you made a conflict of interest declaration? McClenon mobile (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert... Thanks for your respond, this is just a contribution that I would like to make to Wikipedia about this artist, who is my friend, there is not money involved at all, it is more like a honest contribution from me. I told Adrian that I could write the article for him. I work in art promotion but not necessarily getting money for it, this is one of those times when you only want to collaborate... I do have a job in a totally different field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannych (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC) joannych Joannych (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Robert, I would rewrite the article in a most formal tone in order to reach the desire encyclopedic format, I have already requested advice at the teahouse, Thanks again Joannych Joannych (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to Find a Duplicate for Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces), So there is no reason for you Robert McClenon to remove my work from Wikipedia, yes I admit I initially did not cite things as per the standards required by Wikipedia, But subsequently this was completed and was Published and was on Wikipedia for 5 Weeks or so and then it was removed, Considering this was my second Draft and the most detailed and Largest to date at that time, I think you could have at least have cut me a bit of slack,

Can you please reinstate Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) as it gave the reader of Wikipedia references and a understanding to specialist training carried out by members of the Belgium Armed Forces that is accurate, detailed, supported by 8 references and is balanced.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exsap (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Exsap - Your draft still exists, at Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces). The version that was in article space has been deleted. If you want the draft reviewed, please submit it again. If you want advice from other experienced editors, you can ask at the Teahouse. However, you have been given slack, in that your draft still exists. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert,

Pleased to make your acquaintance. I am messaging about the deletion of the page "Kojo Yankson". I am new to Wikipedia and still learning the navigations of this platform so to be honest I did not really understand the reasons for deletion. Kojo Yankson is one of the most prominent radio hosts in Ghana and hosting one of the most listened to morning shows, The Joy FM Super Morning Show, which he has been doing for 4 years. The show has been running since the year 2000 and all the past hosts for the show have Wikipedia pages (Komla Dumor, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, Francis Abban, to name a few). He was also listed as of the 100 most influential people in Ghana so it surprises me that you say he is non-notable, maybe I just need to understand why you say so. There are radio hosts with much smaller shows and followings that have Wikipedia pages so I'm thinking that maybe I just didn't create the page properly. I also just saw that there were previous versions of this page that were deleted in 2015 on the same basis but I can understand that because it had only been a year since he began. In current times however, he has gathered a faithful following and is quite well known in Ghana. He also does news anchoring and reporting on one of Ghana's top news outlets, JoyNews. Currently he is one of the top paid journalists at Multimedia Ghana which owns Joy FM and JoyNews because he hosts their flagship show. However there are less known journalists of Multimedia that have Wikipedia pages. Multimedia Ghana owns many of the well listened to channels in Ghana (TV & Radio) and so Kojo Yankson being a top member shows the value the company places on him. This convinces me that it was probably how I went about creating the page that was the issue. I created a draft and submitted it for review and then when I learned I could publish after 4 days I went ahead and did. I didn't realize that that annoys the reviewers. My sincerest apologies for my novice behaviour. I would really appreciate your input and help on how I can properly recreate this page and what I can do to prevent another deletion. I would also like for you to point out to me the specific points in the article that were considered non-notable so that I can correct or improve them. The interface of this platform still confuses me a little so I would really appreciate the assistance. Thank you so much for you help and patience.

Regards, Em. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KEA 593 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:KEA 593 - You can discuss the deletion with other experienced editors at the Teahouse. If you disagree with the deletion, you can request Deletion Review, but I would suggest asking for advice at the Teahouse as to why it was deleted and whether you can get it restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I added the relation to the threefold repetition rule and the fifty-move rule for the two rules and resubmitted the drafts.

Just for information, the fivefold repetition rule is currently organized as a section of the threefold repetition rule. As such the redirect Fivefold repetition to Threefold_repetition#Fivefold_repetition was created. Similiarly, the redirect Seventy-five-move rule to Fifty-move_rule#Seventy-five-move_rule was created. The redirects are of course to be removed when the rules are organized in their own articles, being independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlbbld (talk • contribs) 09:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your comments on my draft on Cees 't Hart - the CEO of Carlsberg Group (the world's 3rd largest brewer). I am now aware of the COI and have therefore disclosed my affiliation with Carlsberg on my User Page (I am a student assistant in the company).

The reason I wanted to create the page, however, is not for professional purposes. I merely find it strange that Cees' peers (AB InBev's Carlos Brito (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Brito_(businessman)) and Heineken's Dolf van den Brink (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolf_van_den_Brink)) have Wikis when Cees 't Hart doesn't.

I will redo the article based on your comments (independent sources and less directory entry format) and resubmit the page for review. Again, thank you for the comments.

Kind regards, Kristoffer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoffer.Johannessen (talk • contribs) 13:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I gave Adrian Arguedas Ruano a significant trim, made it neutral and added many sources. I've moved it to article space, hope that is OK. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:ThatMontrealIP - Of course. After neutral editors did the research, it was clear that he is a notable artist. It was also unfortunately clear that his agent wasn't helping, and was apparently having a diva flounce. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) thank you for moderating the Swaminarayan Sampradaya dispute. I just wanted to follow up regarding the status of the dispute considering it's been over 48 hours since the last post. The dispute has been archived (see here) but still says "Discussion in progress". Is the dispute now officially closed? Harshmellow717 (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) given that it's been 5 days since the Swaminarayan Sampradaya dispute was archived, I am assuming that the dispute is now closed. Harshmellow717 (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, thanks for your review - I trimmed the article to reflect that of similar programs. You noted that it does not satisfy software notability, since the first review I significantly changed the references. Could you please give some advice on what else would need to be seen to satisfy notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanMunchie (talk • contribs) 10:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This draft has been revised to reflect the general notability of the subject. The subject is notable because of her extensive experience in tax policy law, as displayed by her experience developing legislation on Capitol Hill, working in top consulting positions in numerous prominent firms, and her ongoing work in establishing and serving on high-level positions in several notable non-profits. The coverage of the subject has also been revised to focus on her noteworthy career as opposed to her candidacy.

Furthermore, the sources have been edited to reflect a neutral point of view, in that they are reliable and independent of the subject. The sources have extensive coverage of the subject’s career and notable work, and the subject is widely mentioned among several prominent sources.

I implore you to publish this draft, as it provides an important addition to Wikipedia and is a satisfactory summary of the subject’s career and work.

Thank

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to bring to your notice that the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed was deleted using deletion review was because due to a spelling mistake in the article name the reviewers were not able to access any of the sources. When you check with the right name Adeeb Ahamed there are plenty of independent sources available to support notability. I humbly request you to reconsider. Thank you (Kuruvillac (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, I last posted a few days ago and hadn't seen any updates on the thread. I saw that it's archived though still shows up as 'in progress.' Please let me know if the discussion has closed or if there's anything else you need from me. Thank you for moderating! Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Klein, 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 Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staying well away- however I just wanted to suggest you go read what was actually said by the other two editors before- as QUITE A BIT of those quotes I used to "justify" closing were left out of the new statement made to justify re-opening. And with that- I am happily skipping away for a PEACEFUL wiki-free weekend. Good luck!! Nightenbelle (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert After editing the article on Mark Shipman, I re-submitted it and it has not been knocked back. I have not had the experience of creating an article prior to this and I wondered if I could call on your experience and expertise to now move the article to mainstream. I have also noted your comment regarding disambiguation. How do you add a hatnote to the primary page? Is this something you can do for me? I would be most appreciative. "Comment: The title of this draft has been disambiguated. If this draft is accepted, a hatnote will need to be added to the primary page to refer to this page. The primary page is Mark Shipman. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)"

PuedaHacer (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Salim Mehajer on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why you think Elijah Joyce isn't considered notable for Wikipedia. There is many sources on him and he owns school records, which will make him qualify for the schools "Notable alumni section". Thank you for responding. CurrentWeather (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

I saw you added a template here. I appreciaqte your concerns for citations and eye for detail. Maybe it's just me, but unfortunately I can't find this a terribly helpful suggestion because it lacks detail. The citation style seems rather consistent to me, as most are created by the default visual editor tools. Please be specific what you don't like, or better yet: just fix it. Right now, it's just an ugly template that's gonna stay there forever because it's unclear what you had in mind. effeietsanders 23:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:effeietsanders I couldn't find a better template. There is a problem with Footnote 2. Footnote 2 displays an ugly red Reference Error at the bottom of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: If you find a problem that is not covered by a template, maybe the better approach is not to use a template, but rather specify something on the talkpage (as you did just now: thanks :) ) New contributors would be utterly confused by this (even more than me). Again: I appreciate your engagement, just would love to make sure it helps in the most constructive way possible! Either way - fixed, it was not too hard. effeietsanders 00:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I am deeply grateful for your efforts: your willingness to listen, to lower the drama level, and to find a solution are all genuinely appreciated.

I think it helped resolve the issue indirectly if not directly. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chrisonga (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:KTC Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, thanks for the review. Much appreciated. As I clearly stated, I do marketing and communications for KTC, and tried to write a short, non-opinionated, factual description of KTC to start off. The previous reviewr stated that we were not notable enough, which I backed up with additional resources, of which none were written by us. My motivation here, is because we have been in business for 50 years and manufacturer for some of the biggest outdoor brands in the world, which I beleive to be notable, and worthy of a wikipedia entry. Especially because the founding of the company was quite a breakthrough back in it's day. Thanks for any assistance you can provde me with. Best regards Chris. Chris Ongarello (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Chris Ongarello (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blowing on my fingers and gauging the wind. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra - Is blowing on your fingers done before throwing to dry them out to improve your grip? We both know that someone is there. If the target is a ranter, they have had a long journey through space and time halfway around the world from mid-seventeenth-century London. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob. I saw your rejection of my article on Draft:Mike Siegel (politician). For the moment, I'll keep the article in my workspace, and we'll see what happens after the election. However, there is a reference to Mike Siegel on the page of the Congressional District where he's running: Texas's 10th congressional district. Would the editors object if I provided some information about Siegel in the relevant sections of that article? Gnaanamurthy (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost the thread of this as it was a week or two ago, but as I recall I went to the page from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard in the first place, thinking I might be able to help. I gave up quickly because it was difficult to understand exactly what was going on. Deb (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here it is. Deb (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deb - Yes. The filing editor is invoking your name, saying that either you or someone have already taken their side against someone else. I spent considerable time trying to figure out whether there was a plausible case, sort of guessing that there wasn't, because the filing editor seems to be making a demand for some sort of action rather than requesting mediation. Maybe we should leave them alone and either let them cause trouble for someone else or let them calm down. Thank you for trying. We both tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just don't seem to have the required diplomatic skills! Deb (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am requesting your help. I am new to Wiki and have been trying to write a draft on a famous Indian Actor Sean Banerjee, which you have reviewed and rejected twice. In your comment you have written the following "If this draft is resubmitted without expansion, or without an explanation of how notability is satisfied, such as only with the addition of references, it may be Rejected. Since the subject likely is notable, please don't ruin this submission by empty resubmission.". Can you please explain what you mean by "empty resubmission"? Also, the draft was expanded before re-submission. Could you please let me know what else do I need to add so that it gets approved? Thank you. Urmi Mukherjee (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Robert McClenon:, I have a proposed text for the second paragraph. 'Just wondering if you missed this in one of my responses in our dispute resolution discussion. I thought I still had time to discuss it but the dispute got closed. Here are the arguments for my second paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#RFC_on_Second_Paragraph_of_Lede

May the choice be between this and the current text instead of between removing or keeping the second paragraph? Somebody needs to play moderator to every change I make because it keeps getting reverted. It feels like my every edit has become somebody's obsession.

Wikipedia sure has a weird sense of justice. I tried to follow the rules; the only lapse being the minor edit to revert somebody's change to the title of the Controversy section while we were in a dispute resolution discussion, but I seem to have ended with the short end of the stick.

I am reverting the massive changes that were done to the Rating section while we were having a dispute resolution discussion. I feel it's fair to revert such changes done in bad faith. But please let me know if there is something wrong with me trying to right somebody else's violation (since I really don't understand Wikipedia's sense of justice). Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lizzydarcy2008 - Hmmm. This is a dispute where Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as implemented, do not work very well. I will study the situation again within the next 24 hours. The problem is that we have an editor, CherryPie94, who was editing the article at the same time as using dispute resolution. I will see whether there is anything obvious that I have missed, or whether the problem is all in the details. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lizzydarcy2008 - I see that this is a problematic situation, and I don't have a straightforward answer, and I haven't forgotten you or the situation. I don't think that it is so much that Wikipedia has a weird sense of justice, as that sometimes justice is complicated. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: And it seems that complicated justice is leaning one way. Editing an article while it is being disputed seems to me to warrant some form of penalty. Yes, it seems I am the one being penalized. I have asked before how impartial the RFC process is and my fear that the voting editors would be partial has been founded. An editor voted on both RFC's even before I wrote my opening statements. How obviously partial is that? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lizzydarcy2008 - Is there anything in particular that you think should be done? I am not entirely sure what you are asking for or about. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: My apologies for my rant. I'm just tired of repeating myself to the other party. I don't know if I have the right to say what needs to be done. I just want to ask, is it fair that somebody who flouts rules, though she keeps citing Wiki rules that suit her agenda, did not get any kind of penalty for causing a dispute to fail? All those hours I spent up to 6 am for, trying to get my message across, gone up in smoke and now I have to do it all over again, twice, since there are two RFC's. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your comment on Charles Tracy Draft:Charles_W._Tracy. Could I suggest that the disambiguated title is Charles Tracy (art historian) as he does not use Charles W Tracy in publications. I am sorry, I don't know how to change that myself. But I am happy to add to the main Charles Tracy disambiguation page. Thanks for your help! KerstingFan (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for reviewing my draft on the musician page - Gayathri Girish. I had only intended to edit the existing page and based on your comment on my draft article, I have taken the edits back to the actual article page. I have also followed your advise and marked my draft for deletion by inserting the template you suggested and publishing the edit. I see on the article page your message about the article being marked for merging with the draft. Please would you remove that message since the AFC draft has been deleted? Thank you so much. Pratima.lakshmanan (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alt News on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Live PD: Roll Call on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to create an article for "Kapaemahu (film)", an animated short film. I originally submitted it as a draft, but when I saw it would take months to review I consulted the internet (big mistake!) which said to submit it directly in create space, which I did by copy-paste. That was rejected because there was already a draft, but meanwhile the draft was rejected because already as article. Help! How to get the article considered? Itʻs a notable film (Variety magazine, Oscar qualified etc) and the article follows wiki format. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imi Ike Nui (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Imi Ike Nui - I have marked the draft as resubmitted, so that it will be reviewed by another reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Draft:1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole.Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.

• More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
• Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
• Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[7]

The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).

The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.

New requirements for user signatures

• The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
• Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.

Next: New discussion tool

Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert,

I feel that my effort to use the dispute resolution noticeboard has not really brought results. I admit, I had not read the instructions thoroughly, and although I did notice the others I named, I did not do it in the mandated manner, on their user pages. I have done so now, and hope it is not too late.

I presume I can still add to the article talk page, after beginning a DRN. But I can't change the article, because there is an ongoing dispute? I actually could not find that in the instructions, but I saw that another DRN was closed out on the basis that someone had changed the article, while the DRN was ongoing.

But, my main question is, can I close it (the DRN) out, without prejudice, and do an RfC at this point. If so, how?Truth Is King 24 (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Truth Is King 24 - I will make a few comments now, and maybe say more later. You can always publish an RFC. DRN does not stop an RFC. An RFC does stop DRN.

I don't think that there are instructions at the top of the page that say not to edit the article while dispute resolution is in progress. However, the moderator usually states what the ground rules are for mediation, and some of the standard sets of rules say that no one may edit the article while discussion is in progress. That really seems like a common-sense rule, although some editors do not see it that way.

There isn't a set of rules that cover everything. Some matters are resolved using either common sense or past observation and wisdom.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Robert, I'll await your further input.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a substitute since my issue is with the other user's inadequate adherence to WP:V in general, it is strictly a 1-v-1 "dispute". Please reconsider based on WP:IAR. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the double message. You were correct in that closing since the above user has next-to-nonexistent Article talk contribution (or user talk, FWIW). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:10, 7 September 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/Know Your Ships: Guide to Boats & Boatwatching, Great Lakes & St. Lawrence Seaway".

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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:UnitedStatesian - Huh!? That's even worse than most of the things that Twinkle thinks I had something to do with. I probably moved that page from the sandbox to draft space. I certainly wouldn't have edited someone's sandbox without moving it. But I would rather get stupid notices than have someone complain that they didn't get a notice. Huh. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Involuntary commitment on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your feedback on the page List of schools in Nairobi County. Do you think it makes sense to cite over 2000 items on the article using inline citations in order to meet WP:N. considering this is just a list such as this and not geographic feature. A quick search of the topic can pass WP:GNG as a list?. The map serves to explain the geographical location of the list, but the article is only about a list only. --waweruboyWaweruboy (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to deny the Texas A&M College of Liberal Arts article saying that it doesn't warrant its own page outside of the main Texas A&M University page. However, several other colleges (Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M College of Architecture, TAMU College of Engineering, and more) have their own individual articles. Could you please help me figure out what it is about the Liberal Arts page that makes you feel this way?

I look forward to hearing from you!

User:Revlib24 - First, sign your posts. It is very hard to reply if you forget to sign them. Second, I do not know about articles on other schools and colleges of the university, but see Other Stuff Exists, also known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Maybe the other articles should be merged into the parent article. Third, did I say to explain, in AFC comments or on the talk page or the draft, or at Talk:Texas A&M University, why a separate article is in order for the college? Did you resubmit the draft without explaining? Fourth, you may ask for the comments of other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Shankar (disambiguation), 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 Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have you listed for AFC help. You are welcome to remove yourself from the list, or add yourself to any of the other categories you would be interested in being pinged to help with; I would happily do it for you also, as you wish. As a regular at Wikipedia help desks, your feedback regarding any and all aspects would be most welcome. Best! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You can remove the ?. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol is another area. It is not the same as AFC. I am not sure who to list. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I can think of a few. I'll keep it in mind, and add it once I have a few volunteers. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for your help in resolving the Tesla, Inc. founders dispute! Stonkaments (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. With all due respect, can't understand the point of the DRN itself? Where I can find neutral policies-based opinion on the matter? Corvus tristis (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Corvus tristis - First, are you inquiring about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Points_in_brackets ?

I closed that thread simply because it was not being discussed. Do you want to have another discussion? If so, I will re-open the case and notify the other editors. Is there a particular question about which you want a neutral policies-based opinion? Do you have a specific question? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about that. I thought that everyone who were involved should leave their opinion on the matter, and then a volunteer should have give neutral answer to my question and neutral overview of the case. The goal is to interpret the policies on the matter and close the case with the clear understanding which position is correct. If DRN could do it then please re-open. If not then please tell me where I should address my issue. Cheers Corvus tristis (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just noticed your note on Draft:Somatic mutation. The person concerned did start a discussion in Talk:Mutation, but put it in the wrong place, so it was missed. I have now moved the discussion to the appropriate place. As someone who has a background in biochemistry, I would say that the topic is notable enough to exist on its own, so the draft can be moved to the main space. Hzh (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hzh - I will review the discussion again within 24 hours. The reasoning looks correct, so that I will probably accept the draft as a sub-article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Green red tan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Theresa Greenfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert McClenon,

I am brand new to Wikipedia and I don't know all of the rules. I am a resident of Iowa and I think my Senate candidate, who has already won the Democratic primary and is a prominent business woman, deserves a Wikipedia page. Would you be kind enough to give me a few specific things I could add to the page so that the page is approved?

Thanks so much!

Green red tan (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shooting of Mark Duggan on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield § Discussion on whether cited material should be included or excluded. Peaceray (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert,

Hope you can help me recover a draft you deleted. I'm kinda desperate for the work and I have no backup of my own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Risk.manager/Pleasure_boat_international_travel_formalites&action=edit&redlink=1

I've exhausted all my other backup options and pray you can help before I begin 50 hrs of rework.

Thanks

User:Risk.manager - I didn't delete it. I moved it. Following what happened to it, it appears to have gone on a long sea voyage and wound up at Draft:Comparison of marine tourism laws, and it appears to have been deleted from that title as G13, and you can request that it be undeleted. It appears that the deleting administrator was User:AustralianRupert, but you can ask for it at Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert McClenon, I was created "Rayhan Maditra Indrayanto" article today. But any editor don't agree with my article, and you to 🥺 Sorry, Rayhan Maditra is famous Doctor in Indonesia. He is a founder of MAKO TALK. a plaform education & discussion about health. The platform based on Youtube and Instagram. This is our content on his YouTube: MAKO TALK's channel on YouTube Can you help to verivied on these article? Hopefully you can understand my language. Cauze my english language not good. This draft needed to help for dont delete!

1. REDIRECT Draft:Rayhan Maditra Indrayanto

Yemimas29 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yemimas29 - I will reply within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yemimas29 - You may work on the draft, or may ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Robert McClenon I'm too early to restore and complete this article. can you help me? I'm really not good at it Yemimas29 (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the end of this wall of text? I see on that talk page some editors already voted but seems will not finished. And cause that, i still mentioned on that talk page when the discussions seems not found win win solution at all. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michaelelijahtanuwijaya - I think that I will have to post a note to WP:ANI. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon I'm sorry i didn't tell you before but i already request closure by posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Am i wrong to did that? I'm sorry if i wrong. But for post a note to WP:ANI i agree if it possible. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michaelelijahtanuwijaya - I don't think that the RFC is ready for closure. It hasn't run for thirty days. I will check Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon I'm sorry i didn't read about 30 days. It's my fault. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kamala Harris on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redlinks should not be included in a dismbiguation page. (See WP:DDD). Three pages is usually considered the required level, so a disamb. page may not be required at this time. If it is intended that an article be created for the professor, this should be done first. With 2 pages to consider, 'hatnotes' may be better at this point.

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Justin Paul (disambiguation) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Justin Paul (disambiguation), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eagleash (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Eagleash (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your speedy deletion request at User:Robert McClenon/Watching paint dry. You want to move a redirect from draft space into your user space, with the real article already in article space? Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete the redirect, which is already in my user space. I had originally tagged it when it was in article space, but then it pushed it out of the way into my user space. I will clarify by adding U1. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just created ((db-moved)) for future cases where this happens. ((db-move)) isn't ideal for that purpose, since it means that a move still needs to happen. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jackmcbarn - Excellent! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content haven't any violation and any "copy edit", the first page of this village is "Mezdatta" (Fr.Wikipédia) created by me, and I copied the same informations or I translated them to this page draft: imezdaten (version en.wikipedia). The village contain population and history, can found it adminstrativement... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamirAmiri (talk • contribs) 15:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We probably have posted the same page twice, because the first one was declined. Now I have modified the first one and submitted it again, therefore the second page, the one you declined, can be completely discarded. We are a non profit organization just trying to create a wikipedia page, but it is taking us way longer than we thought, so could you please help us? By the way, we managed easily to submit the version in Italian and in Hebrew, why English has to be so complicated? --Gibbone22 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gibbone22 - You can ask at the Teahouse for a better explanation than I can give of why the English Wikipedia is different from the Italian Wikipedia and the Hebrew Wikipedia. However, each language of Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines, and the English Wikipedia, with 6.1 million articles, is often misused for promotional purposes, and so has relatively strict notability guidelines, which include organizational notability. Also, the English Wikipedia has conflict of interest policies and guidelines, and the officers and employees of a non-profit organization do have a conflict of interest that should be declared. You probably did not know that you were required to declare your conflict of interest, but that is and long has been the policy. You can ask about conflict of interest at the Teahouse. Neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia, and articles that are written by officers of a non-profit organization will not be neutral about the organization. Other editors may be able to answer your questions better.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 25 September 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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz - This is even stupider than most of the Twinkle G13 warnings that I get, because in this case I only touched it negatively, in that I moved the contents of the sandbox into draft space. But no, please do not delete those stupid messages from my user page. If I get email about them automatically, I would rather ignore then than have to read the history of my talk page to ignore them. This is even stupider than most. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't actually post these CSD messages on user talk pages, Twinkle post them automatically to the page creator when I tag a page. There are some editors who have told me to skip the notices, editors who, for example, create hundreds of categories, so I just uncheck the notify button. You can let me know if you'd like me to do that. I don't think I've tagged many pages you have started so it might not come up much in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz - No. Don't skip them. I am willing to ridicule them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Compaq Armada. I don't want to take credit for your AfC review, so I didn't move Draft:Compaq Armada there myself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jackmcbarn - Thank you. I don't see a piece of paper where I get the credit for AFC reviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_September_25?markasread=200645887&markasreadwiki=enwiki# was to endorse.But please umderstand what happened here. If we consider the first deletion of Manjappada , it was basically for not having significant coverage and not properly structured. And the latest article created was atleast four times the size of the 2016-2018 article. Its well structured than before and had coverage in Times of India ,The week, The News Minute, Asianet News, Goal.com Sportskeeda, Khel now ,The bridge, New Indian Express, Scroll. Majority of them are the most reliable source in India.Also Goal.com is an reputed international football website So I dont see the point why it was deleted. So the summary of the issue is that 2 inexperienced users created the article back then in 2016-18 period which later got submitted.When it was done for the third time, it got permanently protected from recreating . And finally when a person who believes who can create the article in a good way (me) tries to create it , this causes an issue here. I hope you understand. Also go through West Block Blues.This is also a fan club that does not have enough notability as Manjappada.Still it exist in wikipedia even after having 2 deletion discussion.So please tell me your comments Shahoodu (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again, I've made several changes to the page, adding various third party references. Considering that that the duplicate page Draft:UGEI can be deleted, is it possible now to approve Draft:Unione Giovani Ebrei d'Italia?Gibbone22 (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (1974) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Antifa (United States) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]