Hello, I noticed you added a notability tag to the Laycon article. The subject is notable for winning Big Brother Naija season 5 on 27 September 2020 and not for his music. See [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. I've removed the tag and if you've any questions, you're welcome to ask them. Best, —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 03:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Autonomous Alternative Christian Tribe of Parpaillo".

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!} 17:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Liz - Okay. I see that this version of the notice is slightly different than some versions, because the tense of the verb is different, because you tagged it and deleted it in one motion. I have no idea what this was. Does Twinkle also notify the real creator as well as the mover? (As I said, I am satisfied to receive these notes, because I can ridicule them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please restore this page—it contains NO errors, only omissions to be remedied—it is under construction ... BlueLevelBoy (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Draft:Jeffrey, Kentucky. You may resubmit it when it is ready for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've raised the issue of the draft and the confusing AfC situation at WP:AN and have mentioned your involvement, seeking clarity on what should happen next. The thread is WP:AN#Theresa Greenfield. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added that Greenfield has raised more money than any Senate candidate in Iowa history to the article, but I was afraid to put the article up for review again because y'all have created the fake rule of "She is not notable until she wins." A candidate who lost the Democratic primary to her has a page, and she does not. The behavior here does not look great. Sepideh (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I am sending you a talk page message only because I noticed that you are a regular on DRN and I found something odd happening there. On my dispute, we were waiting for a mediator's comment and recently a "new editor" who has been on wikipedia with only a few edits and who joined wikipedia only after my dispute on talk page started, set himself up as a volunteer and then commented on the dispute that he was volunteering as a mediator. I find it odd because he does not know how to sign his comments [6] but knows how to install advanced scripts on his user as his first edits on wikipedia. He also added a fake tag of Pending Changes reviewer which he does not have [7] only to recently remove it. I fear that this may be some one involved or too close to the dispute and I dont want to accuse any one but do feel you should check it out so that the dispute does not get disrupted badly. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MkNbTrD0086 - I will take a look. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking a look. Unfortunately you had to close this dispute due to other editors derailing discussion. But do you think it is normal for an editor to sign up this recent and then volunteer to take the lead as a mediator like this user BJackJS did? MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like tips on how to improve the article. As you know, I have made an attempt on creating an article. Cwater1 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for taking the time to review my draft about Wanderword. I would like to commend that i don't have any sort of financial or other connection with the subject, just wanted to write about this company because i like its work. Also, i would like to say that this is a new studio, so its work isn't so acknowledged yet. The sources are really limited and to be honest i think that i have already mentioned all of them.

Τhe last thing that i can try, is το write about it from an even more neutral point of view and maybe try to cut some things that they seemed "too much".

Thanks again and have a nice day (or night). :P DimZoum (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick note to highlight the professional way you approach decisions on new article drafts, especially declines. Your positive and encouraging tone is good to see and I’m sure is appreciated by the editors. Your positive attitude does not go unnoticed! Go4thProsper (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tell Your Friends( The Weeknd song ). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2#Tell Your Friends( The Weeknd song ) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 06:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kolathur, Chennai. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got mail. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict 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 15:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article West Block Blues does not even have the enough contents and independent sources to be considered as an article. Yet still it exists as a seperate article. I dont know why it overcame two deletion discussion. Please take action to merge it into support section of Bengaluru FC Shahoodu (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shahoodu: I assume you are a Kerela Blaster supporter and there is nothing wrong with that. And I assume Bengaluru FC are your rivals. But if you approach on the result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 25 is to go around attacking all fan club articles then that is the likely result you will get. You will simply annoy Robert more than I currently do. And if you want to AfD an article have the courage to do it yourself and not go around dishonourably egging on others to it like a schoolboy coward. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Djm-leighpark Just understand that this has nothing to with the rival team of the club that I support .I am just showing the mere facts. If I had tje admin power I would have surely solved this problem.Actually I started an AFD long time ago but it was removed by some admins.So what should I do.Can you expalin that to this schoolboy coward. Since robert were one of the admins who were against keeping the article Manjappada,I just want to show him the facts. And dont say I am attacking other fan clubs. Bengaluru FC may be our rival. But thats just inside the pitch. Here I am just showing the discrimination faced by the fan club Manjappada.And I am comparing that with WBB by WP:Other Stuff Exists.So how can that be a attack.Please tell me. I still stand with my words and I believe I had done nothing wrong.I will continue this till this problem gets solved Shahoodu (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really have to disagree with that assessment. It's been met with significant media coverage, the crutch was that since filming had not begun, it failed WP:NFF. A reliable source has been provided to confirm filming had begun. Rusted AutoParts 22:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[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 Robert McClenon was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources.

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:Kolathur, Chennai 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:Kolathur, Chennai, 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[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! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you nominated an article about a South-Indian TV personality for deletion. I was wondering if you've seen how much other stuff of similar or lower quality exits on Wikipedia. I'm actually really concerned that there are possibly tens of thousands of BLP articles which at best are sourced to a handful of paid-for tabloid advertorials. Most of these film industry biographies have entirely unsourced filmography lists, and what seems like a gang of editors willing to defend them no matter how trivial their contribution. Here's an example of an obvious D-lister: The article owner's defence on AfD makes it painfully obvious that this subject does not meet any of our notability criteria. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Salimfadhley - Yes. If you are saying that there are a lot of low-quality Indian articles in draft space and lot more in article space, I agree. Is there a specific conclusion or request, or is that a statement about the way things are? If the latter, yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just ranting, thanks for indulging me. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you tagged the disambigution title Draft:Amanat_Ali_(born_1987) let me explain that there are 4 Amanat Ali in Pakistan. two Amanat Ali are dead and two are alive, this Amanat Ali is at number four and he is a singer from Pakistan and anybody from India or Pakistan will recognize him so the title 1987 birth is little bit bad i guess... it should be Amanat Ali (Singer) or Amanat Ali (Kohraam). --39.34.148.97 (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Please see the article. The results were summed up and it was restored. I would like to remove the ad notification and patrol it. I have deleted some information. Could you help me with patrolling and deleting a template? Thanks! Namerst (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You asked me to do the exact same thing. Why are you asking so many editors to do the same thing? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe he gets paid for the requests? McClenon mobile (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I don't get paid. I just don't know who to go to for page patrolling. Namerst (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have a problem with the article, please just address the matter on the article's talk page. There is no need to ask other editors to do this for you. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The success of lee's television series globally established him as a top hallyu star and a global celebrity. could you please include the word global celebrity in the above sentence.it has been mentioned in the lead with scmp source added to it but someone removed it so can you add it thanks again

- through boys over flowers he is popular in Asia-fact

-this scmp source says he is popular in europe continent through city hunter https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3088074/hyun-bin-lee-min-ho-park-seo-joon-and-5-more-korean-drama

-this source says he is popular in African continent currently through TKEM https://ynaija.com/all-you-didnt-know-about-the-lee-min-ho-trend-nigerian-ladies-are-jumping-on/

thus, lee is popular in Asia,Europe and Africa based on above sources he is popular in three continents is more than enough for mentioning worldwide fame or else fame between continents. so please change it

add this sentence in continued success section- On August 6 2020, Studio Dragon announced their financial performance of TKEM over the second quarter on Netflix with a record-breaking US$135 million in total sales.source below http://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=20200807MW07423210103

in media influence change to be crowned as the Asian male god to was crowned as the Asian male god since he was the winner and past tense

Continued success section--The King Eternal Monarch is 12th most watched series on Netflix worldwide beating other k-dramas released that year. source below https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/the-king-eternal-monarch-beats-crash-landing-on-you-to-become-most-watched-k-drama-on-netflix-in-2020-yet/ar-BB17v1zQ?li=AAggjDC

Thanks Jenny from phillipines 116.93.120.231 (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello - thank you for checking this out - just confirming that there are two people called Jeffrey West, both born in 1950, and both Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries, as per this link: https://www.sal.org.uk/?s=west&post_type=sal_fellow - Dr Jeffrey [K] West was elected FSA on 5 May 1989, and The Revd Canon Jeffrey [J] West was elected FSA on 6 June 2011. I've added these election dates to both articles. The published article is Jeffrey James West and the draft article is Draft:Jeffrey West who incidentally has a middle initial K. And of course they have no connection at all with Jeffrey West whose middle name is Harold, connected with American football! I don't know where we go from here, but really appreciate your help, as this has helped us to clarify matters. Thank you and have a nice weekend! CourtauldGill (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) @CourtauldGill: the way that we deal with articles that should have the same or very similar titles on Wikipedia is called disambiguation. It seems to me that these two articles can be naturally disambiguated by including the individuals' middle names or initials in the page title. The third Jeffrey Harold West is already naturally disambiguated because the title of their article is Jeff West, but what you will probably want to do is overwrite the Jeffrey West redirect with a disambiguation page listing all three individuals. This of course is all presuming that your draft is accepted and becomes Jeffrey K West or something similar. If you need help you can send me a message, or ask at WT:WikiProject Disambiguation. Happy editing! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:CourtauldGill, User:Ivanvector - Thank you for explaining. That is unusual and interesting in having two people who are so easily mistaken. I will take another look shortly, but will go ahead and rename the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:CourtauldGill - The draft on Jeffrey K. West doesn't contain the K in the text of the draft. Please include his full name in the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Ivanvector for the advice, and thank you Robert McClenon for renaming the draft - I'm not the writer of the draft, but was just helping out with the research. I'm sure the writer will be very grateful for your help in moving this forward. I've added the K. middle initial in the intro section - I hope that's where you meant? Thank you! CourtauldGill (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjanvii (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Jjanvii - What is the problem? It looks to me as if Bruce Taylor (American football) belongs in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page Draft:The Masked Singer (Belgian TV series) can be deleted, it has been merged into The Masked Singer (Belgian TV series). Thanks. 91.180.167.15 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I expanded on the information for Don't Breathe 2. I included a well sourced premise, filming locations, and a generalized filming start date, all sourced by major news corporations. However, the problem I am facing, currently, is the exact day and date of filming commencing. Several news sources state, in the page, that filming began shortly after April 2020 in the country of Serbia. A discussion on Talk:Don't Breathe 2 is ongoing on the recent inclusion of filming information. I pinged the users who submitted and moved the draft to the mainspace on the film's talk page, and I would highly appreciate any comments on the recently added filming information. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi there, I wanted to give you a heads-up about this ANI case, since I mention you there as the mediator of our ongoing DRN case. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw that you have addressed the creating of the article once already.^[1], but unforbutely HM2021 created it again. I have submitted the article for SD. This user, HM2021, has been creating a lot of trivial content, which seems for as promotional one. I looked as you have more wiki time under your belt, so I am sking you to help to "restrain" that user a bit ;). Let me know what can be done. Cheers, /k8 11:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Kolma8 (talk)

User:Kolma8 - Fancruft. The article on the film has been created, and has been nominated for deletion, and I have explained the policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may have already noticed - but the "rules man" is at this article again with his stubborn disruptive ignoring of the consensus, to which he remains the only dissenting voice. I am SO fed up with this -which is possibly all he really wants. Trying hard to be patient but what the [naughty word expunged]. I suspect you are even more fed up than me, but would appreciate your support in establishing a firm consensus here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For anyone interested, I responded at User talk:Johnuniq#Roman numerals. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert,

Thank you for mentioning about disambiguation on my article. As you mentioned that i have to make an entry on disambiguation page of the title name if the draft is approved , it has to be done only if it is approved or i can add the entry right now ?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javed khan39 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:René Descartes 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 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 00:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't block the user because I'm not an admin. Sorry. Firestar464 (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Firestar464 - Neither am I. What do you want? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ! Robert McKeon,

You accepted new Article (for Creation, from, viz. Draft:Kolathur, Chennai to) Kolathur, Chennai. I am very grateful to you for the same.

But, I made some mistakes as you mentioned, that I had removed some Templates in the Draftspace. I thought of them to be removed before, for the approval for Mainspace. I hereby request your help in this regard, to retain the article in Mainspace; as technical issues or how to rectify them?

Please advise me. Thanks. --Helppublic (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Helppublic - I suggest that you ask for advice or help at the Teahouse. I will take a look within 48 hours, but that is what you should do next. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to bother you but I'm not sure how else to address this. I've been editing for six years and I know pointless obsessing over detail is not uncommon in Wikipedia but I am genuinely concerned by 021120x, who's now threatening to raise yet another ANI on the French Revolution. Maybe he needs to be barred for a couple of weeks for his own benefit. If you think I'm being overly dramatic, please just delete this and move on :). Thanks for your time. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Robinvp11 - I will take a look within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The offer you made here seems very appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:EdJohnston - You're welcome. We will see if they accept it. If not, it is either an RFC, or just shut up, or topic-bans. If they take up my offer, I may appreciate having an admin with a big stick that does not need to be used, in the background. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People of Praise 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 20:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V Aravind Subramanyam.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Devi Sridhar on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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 05:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I just want to say thanks- Thanks for consistently modeling Diplomacy and giving me something to aspire to. ;-) I'm not consistenly as kind as you are- but I do appreciate all you do to keep WP Drama under control.... ish.... Nightenbelle (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nightenbelle - Well, I'm probably older than you are, but this French Revolution dispute is really pushing my patience. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

..... Yuuuuup. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What makes you think that the Dutch Stichtsche Cricket en Hockey Club (SCHC) is a German athletic association? The Banner talk 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:The Banner - Probable error. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Robert - I was wondering...are user names sometimes an indication of socking? What do you consider to be the best indicator to warrant a sock investigation? Atsme 💬 📧 18:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Atsme - User names can be a confirming indication of socking, but overlapping questionable edits are the usual principal indication of socking. Do you have a specific area or account or issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at the moment but I was involved in a recent discussion (I think on Jimbo's UTP) where a sockmaster was running 2 or 3 socks right under my nose, and I never realize it. But then Jimbo didn't catch it, either, so I thought maybe there's a pattern or clues that I'm not seeing. I'm better at determining when sock activity is not related to an editor I'm familiar with, but even then it's hit and miss. I have used the editor interaction tool a few times for suspected socks in the past, but I wonder about the reliability of that method. I know the easy clues - like when socks use the same words, slang, or phrases, etc. or consistently make the same errors in typing - but that's about it. Atsme 💬 📧 19:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon, in response to your post, my preference is to close the ANI and resolve matters on the article talk page. This was always my preference, however this reached point where it would seem difficult to accomplish without external help, which is why I went to the ANI. The ANI directly sent me to the DRN, which began its review, then closed for several stated reasons (too many editors, contributors not pausing TP discussion while the DRN review was in progress, and because the ANI was left open). So, we were sent back to the ANI. One editor originally expressed desire to close the ANI and go back to the DRN, then reversed this position, which is why it remained open. Things appeared to be resolving on the talk page, then the concern of "stonewalling" held by a few editors in regards to one user arose. Despite the frustration, I would still like to keep matters in the Talk Page. It appears that there is no way to establish a discussion outcome as a precedent for the article, even if the discussion goes through the DRN, so just letting the conversation finish its course is my position at this point. Also, I already told the ANI that I would like to close. 021120x (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a reply on my Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Candleman. Thanks! Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 00:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I saw on the Dispute resolution noticeboard you frequently act to calm thing down, may I ask you to do something before/instead of me putting a formal request? I feel Konkorde just don't live up to his name, and while i can stand a lot, he just went way to far with the alien-biting, racist, personal attack below. Can you, and will you, do something? if not, that's OK, no pressure, a simple "no" will do, no question asked. No emergency either, this affected me I have rather step back a while. In a way he succeeded, and this sad, but if I don't I will put myself in danger. Gem fr (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunter_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=984691231
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=984693084&oldid=984692194

User:Gem fr - Uncivil exchange hidden. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is far from uncivil to point out basic WP:COMPETENCE of someone whose whole spiel is to make personal attacks, demand editors step down, accuse them of lying and / or being conspiracy theorists, deny self evident things, refuse to read sources, deny sources contain content they evidently contain then rush off to complain. If the user returns the same issue remains. They are not here to build an encyclopedia. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, just giving you a head's up that we both seem to have reviewed Draft:Godzilla Singular Point simultaneously, with mine being the slightly later review. I made sure to go back and add your comments as well. I'm honestly kind of bemused by this, since normally I'd have received an edit conflict notice. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ReaderofthePack - My experience is that scripts do not recognize edit conflicts, so that edit conflicts with scripts result in a race condition. This is definitely the case with the AFC script, and I think that it is an issue with scripts in general. Edit conflict is only recognized if you are editing with either Visual Editor or the traditional markup editor. It's not even so much a bug with scripts, as the lack of a feature, where the feature is the recognition of the race condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Robert - I've just replied to your question about the above draft article, so would be grateful if you could please take a look. Regards, Duncan R2 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again, Robert - just a quick note to thank you for reviewing and publishing the above article so quickly. RegardsDuncan R2 (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 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 12:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• CSTeller (talk · contribs)
  • User:CSTeller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rebecca Hawkins Draft Comments Hello Robert, Thank you for your comments. This is my first Wikipedia article and I hope you can assist me in resolving them so my article can be published. On the first comment about the picture of Rebecca Hawkins. It Is actually in the public domain as confirmed by the Jackson County Historical Society which sent me scan of this portrait. It is more than 160 years old from a family collection of portraits that a descendent donated to the society who confirmed that there are no restrictions on its use. I did read the lengthy rules and talked to the society to make sure this was acceptable. However, I think I mistakenly uploaded the wrong one from my files. Instead of the one I received from the society, this may be the copy I had sent to the society so they could identify Rebecca Hawkins in their collections. I cannot see much difference in them but it was a copy I found in a publication that used the photo with the society identified as the owner. So I think I selected the wrong one as I was uploading it. It may take me a little because I’m still figuring out how to navigate my way around, but I will figure out how to get the original scan from the society loaded instead as quickly as I can.

On the comment about the work being copied from another source. Please let me clarify that the writing is all my own. I have cited my sources but none of it is copied or even paraphrased from the sources. I wrote it all in my own words (It took weeks of consulting multiple sources). This is a project for a history course I am taking toward a master’s in History). I think it appears copied because I did copy it from what I thought was a sandbox where I could submit the draft from. I wrote it all in word and copied into this sandbox and tried to submit it for review from there. I could not get it to work so I created a separate draft and copied all of my work into the new draft and submittted it from there. I believe this may be why it looks like it is not my original work. I was crushed when I originally thought I was going to have to re-type all of my work again and happy when I figured out how to copy it over with all the references and links I had created in the sandbox. I will do it if that is required, but I hope not. Any tips you can give me on how to get my work into a draft page for submission that reflects that it truly is my own work, which it definitely is, more easily I would be extremely grateful. I will figure out to delete the redirect. It’s good to know what was causing this. I was wondering why that was happening and how to fix it! Again thank you for your comments and any advice you can offer that will help me get them resolved. CSTeller CSTeller (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CSTeller (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert! Thank you for your comment on my draft. Hopefully I am replying correctly — I'm still new to Wikipedia. Since the subject of my article shares a name with an already existing person, how should I proceed? I'm a little confused on my end. Should I change the name to Jan Bednar (entrepreneur)?

Beatanese (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my response at Draft:James Gulley. --2604:2000:E010:1100:943E:8385:E170:7619 (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You sent me a comment on another file named- Karikku sent for deletion. But it was not made by me. So how does it affect my article. Please answers my querries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis77177 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was the one, who created that article. But, I made an error and all was lost. I have decided to rewrite it and you may review it. Thank you--Atlantis77177 (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Robert, thanks for help with the page. Really appreciated! Are we not able to do Tyrant (band) and have to have it Tyrant (Michigan band)?

Please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipwinters1 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Philipwinters1 - There are already three bands named Tyrant. You did the right thing in trying to disambiguate, but it wasn't an adequate disambiguation. See Tyrant (disambiguation) and look at the bands. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:RobertMcClenon Okay, thanks for the clarification! Would Tyrant (American band) or Tyrant (Metal band) be acceptable as well? Still trying to learn how to properly edit articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipwinters1 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Philipwinters1 - We normally use the least restrictive name. I haven't checked whether any of the other bands are American bands or metal bands. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you be so kind as to add a population infobox? Because I have no idea whatsoever. Edion Petriti (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wendy Carlos 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 19:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:RobertMcClenon (please remove if not allowed to post here).

As a fairly new not so active editor, I was wondering if you could please take a look at something for me. On the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Fraser_(psychic) article there was a section there for a long time called "TV & media appearances", so I proceeded to add some tv and media content to it with secondary refs etc. It was immediately reverted by MrOllie as "promotion" (99% of his dozens of daily edits are just reverts). But I've seen similar sections on hundreds of other articles so why not there? So I reverted MrOllie and then MrOllie came back and not only reverted the one line of content I added but the whole section. So I reverted again and then Drmies comes in and reverts within one minute and slaps my talk page with two tags (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MkNbTrD0086)!? The article in question was already extremely biased and imbalanced and full of repetitive citations/refs, but now it's totally out of balance. Everything is criticism related about the subject with some BLP violations.

My question is: Did I do something wrong here and why the removal of the whole section as I only added one sentence to the already existing section? How come I see similar sections elsewhere allowed but I get "slapped" and warned on my own talk page if I try to edit? And how can I prevent been blamed for "disruptive editing" in the future when I just added a little content and it was these two editors/admins who reverted my edits first?

Thank you. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher)@MkNbTrD0086: Wikipedia sticks to professionally-published mainstream sources, which means Wikipedia takes the stance that psychic powers aren't real. Not just "unproven" but that tests to prove them have repeatedly failed. See WP:FRINGE for more info on that.

Mistakes in other articles do not justify new mistakes. Also, are you sure you're getting it right that other articles list every single TV appearance by the subject? Or are you thinking about about actor pages listing the shows they've acted in? Because those are not the same thing, and you'll notice that those pages don't list every single interview or promo spot they've done.

One way to avoid disruptive editing is to stop when a more experienced editor reverts you or leaves you a message. For example, MrOllie has been editing for 12 years and has over 100,000 edits. Sure, we'll say that 99% of his edits are reverts, but if you look at them, what do you know, he's pretty good at spotting and removing promotional material. Drmies has been editing for 13 years and has almost 300,000 edits, and he's an administrator. Maybe they know what they're talking about and maybe you should pay attention.

Another thing is to never never restore changes you made more than three times within a 24 hour period.

Another thing is to assume that other users are here to help the site, which comments such as this and this indicate you are not doing with other users.

Even if you don't want to listen to anything else I have to say, one piece of evidence that can only help you is this: find another topic to edit to learn how the site works. Part of the reason that everyone assumes you work for Fraser is that your activity is almost completely focused on making him look legitimate (which, again, we're just not going to do). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:Ian.thomson, Thank you for explaining why I'm getting hammered left, right and centre since I picked this article as my starting point on the wikipedia platform. Your first sentence explains everything. Now I finally know why and I'll stop for now.

I did NOT say that other articles list all appearances by the subject. What I said was 100's of other articles have similar sections on them as I've seen on the subjects article (meaning different articles on different topics have a place of their "recognition or career"). And neither did I try to add "every single interview" so please don't be daft. I found a few and I thought to add them (at least it may balance the body a bit was my thought process). But I've been met with hastiness as a result to the point where it is almost scary.

I'm NEW to wikipedia, don't you understand that so I do not know every rule in the book. Of course more senior editors know more than I do and I will, of course, pay more attention in the future but it does not make them right 100% of the time, or does it?

Also, I've never broken the 3RR but thanks for pointing that out to me, I will be very careful of that.

I always go with the assumption that others are here to help but this same editor followed me to my talk page before and after having a go at Robert McClenon himself on the DRN page and accused me of all sorts. If you had read the subjects talk page and DRN section, you would see the reason why I replied like I did. Although I am not trying to justify it.

Of course I want to listen to what you have to say and I'm grateful for your input. And I'm not trying to make anyone look legitimate nor do I need to - the article is simply biased and very critical and there is even a trivial sentence in the lede about a sting which was unsuccessful/failed but I do not see you falling over yourself to "correct" that. BUT again you've explained to me in your first sentence why it is allowed (Wikipedia sticks to professionally-published mainstream sources, which means Wikipedia takes the stance that psychic powers aren't real. Not just "unproven" but that tests to prove them have repeatedly failed.), so thank you, now I know.

You mention I should find another topic to edit to learn how the site works - that's a great idea but what's there to stop any other editor or admin to revert everything I "try" to do on another topic or article like with the one I started with?

One last thing, Wiki is extremely complex and I'm learning as I go along. Thank you for your above reply. I appreciate it. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:MkNbTrD0086 - I am not entirely sure why you are asking me, although I haven't followed the recent history of the Matt Fraser article. You opened a DRN request about a month ago. Editors then began arguing in the DRN before the volunteer moderator could take over, and I failed the discussion. I advised that any questions about either the lede or the body of the article could be decided by Request for Comments. I still suggest using a Request for Comments. That is often what I suggest when there is a content disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am troubled by your words: 'You mention I should find another topic to edit to learn how the site works - that's a great idea but what's there to stop any other editor or admin to revert everything I "try" to do on another topic or article like with the one I started with?' You started editing on a topic whee you disagree with the majority of editors, because you think that Fraser is authentic and the majority of editors think that he is either a fraud or self-deluded. So you are being advised to edit in an area where you do not have an emotional involvement. If you think, from the outset, that other people typically are against you, then your problem is not just being in a minority on Fraser but having a confrontational attitude. So either use an RFC on Fraser, or find another topic area, or expect everyone to be against you. (Unfortunately, the last is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Editors don't like editors who are looking for trouble.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:RobertMcClenon, thank you for your reply and feedback. Yes, I remember your suggestion but as I'm fairly new to wiki and don't edit often, I do not know (yet) how to just do that (using a RFC). Also, I'm not sure if it is worth my time and energy as I'm learning on the go and it's not easy. Apart from my original question to you, I just found it so strange that an unsuccessful sting is part of the lede and takes up a huge portion of the body (as I've read it twice in full). And the title of that sting is "Inside the Secret Sting Operations to Expose Celebrity Psychics" (going by the NYT article) but when different editors tried to add the word "celebrity" to the subjects lede, other editors opened up a section on the talk page and nearly went to war to prevent it. So which is it? Either both the failed sting stays with the word celebrity in the lede or it all should go. You see, I'm thinking logically here and it doesn't add up. The article is good enough to promote a failed sting (a one-time trivial event) but it is not good enough to have the word celebrity in the lede as the NYT article is titled. Get my drift? But as you said the majority of editors think the subject is a fraud and they equally think that I think he and that industry is authentic, so where does one go from here. So best to find another topic area like you suggest I think. Also, just to clarify, I do not think every editor is against me personally, of course not. It has just been my experience since I joined up. After User:Ian.thomson clarified WHY in his first sentence, I now understand the "aggression" more as Wiki as a whole are "against" that industry (Wikipedia sticks to professionally-published mainstream sources, which means Wikipedia takes the stance that psychic powers aren't real.) But then I ponder to myself; why are these articles created in the first place on wiki or allowed on wiki if the platform is "against" them? There are tons of similar articles. Anyhow, thank you for your input and I'll take it on board regarding another topic area too. Regards. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory 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 10:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I apologize for being so late to explain myself, I never meant to upload this article for AFC, I had requested this draft's deletion a while back and when I refunded it, I had forgotten that the article had been submitted for review prior to my deletion request. I would also like to mention that I did want to start a discussion regarding the subject, however no-one had followed up on the talk page and I decided to delete the section from the talk page as a result, you can see it here [8] (it's the latest talk page edit made on the 8th of October). I've since edited and updated the article with a couple of references in the legacy sub-section of the article, kindly take a look at it and let me know if it's clear to put through the AFC. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 10:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Delta fiver - This draft doesn't appear to overcome the existing deletion discussion. I will be declining it within 24 hours. If you think that it should be accepted, please provide your rationale on the draft talk page or in an AFC comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have responded on the talk page. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 09:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I woke up to this notification on my phone and I really appreciate you taking the article to deletion review, I apologize for the earlier mistakes I had made. I do have one request if possible, to make the draft that I'm editing to be in the main space rather than removing the prior redirect, as it saves me sometime time updating the prior article. Thank you again. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 20:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there Robert, it has been a couple of days now, is there any update on the deletion review, is it fine to submit the article for review again? I'm an AFC reviewer as well, with your permission I could accept it and save time. Cheers Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 15:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any update with the article? Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 06:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

may i know a detailed answer as to why the draft article for emergency tsunami does not meet the notability criteria? from what i know for a fact the tape is from a notable artist and i believe i have provided enough references as per the subject. i have added one more reference as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allee143 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Allee143 - First, not every tape by a notable artist is independently musically notable. Second, unreleased works and products are normally not independently notable, but are mentioned in another article if they are reported by reliable sources. I advised that the draft be resubmitted when the tape is released. That is still my advice. If you want more explanation of musical notability guidelines, you can ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do appreciate your action on this and I haven't intentionally been difficult :) My frustration is this is not about content but winning an argument. We have one individual who's still keeping it going; I've come across them before and removed myself from any pages they were editing eg the American Revolutionary War. This is not a one-off, its a pattern.

Hence my scepticism about a DRN and you're right, I did misunderstand the purpose of an RFC, so I've learned something new! Robinvp11 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, User:Robinvp11 - An RFC is the procedure for voting. If you didn't know that, you learned that. I was counting two pro-American editors, one of whom was blocked and is now off block, and is leaving the remaining discussion alone. This is a case where in Wikipedia, there is no deadline, so that we can just wait until the bot guillotines the RFC. Just be patient, please, and it seems that you are being patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I would like to know if you can open my draft again, in case i want to edit it in the future. Thanks! DimZoum (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:DimZoum - My advice is to discuss at the Teahouse. I will bring the issue up there in a neutral way. You can, if you wish, tag the current rejected draft for G7, which requests that it be deleted, and then write a new draft, but I would advise getting advice before doing that, so that we don't repeat history. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert

Thank you very much for your observation that my draft article on Jan Owen will require a disambiguation, since there is more than one Jan Owen! I think you suggested 'Author'. A more appropriate appellation would be social entrepreneur, since that is her main claim to fame. For this reason, I have moved the draft to Jan Owen (Social Entrepreneur). Thanks again!Davidetalg2 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC 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 13:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I hadn't checked in on this conversation before it closed, but on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Contents/History and events/Topics, you used the word "ragpicking". I'm not familiar with that term outside of textile recycling, and was curious what you meant? -- Beland (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Beland - I may be the only person who uses the term at MFD. It consists of going through draft or user space for no obvious reason (although there usually is an unobvious reason) and finding "rags", pages that one nominates for deletion. I make that comment at MFD if I don't know why the nominator was there in the first place. If you look in someone's bureau drawers and find that their drawers are dirty, you don't know whether the drawer that you were in was for clean drawers or drawers waiting to be washed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'm still not entirely sure how to interpret the question "was the nominator ragpicking?" I was in fact cleaning up after a merge and noticed some pages that looked neglected and redundant, and thought long-term maintenance would be easier and readers would be less confused if they were deleted. -- Beland (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, I have restructured, rewritten, and found all secondary sources now! It's final day for decision I think (?) for J. Jaye Gold Can you take one more look? Very much appreciated.Onganymede (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya. I'm interested in the decision you took (not contesting it, just interested) - this is one of a very large number now of articles on 'handball teams' created by this user with little sourcing and I took my lead in moving it to draftspace from another patroller who had moved two previous articles. I'm new to patrolling, so would appreciate the input! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Alexandrmcnabb - I am confused. I don't know what decision you think I made about this article, but only have a few minutes and will be back in a few hours. It appears to me that you were right in moving the article to draft space, but the author then re-created the article in article space. This is tendentious behavior on the author's part, but it gives the reviewers only the choice of leaving the article in article space, or of nominating the article for deletion. I haven't yet had time to review whether to write an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. I got a template 'unpatrolled' message on my talk from you, hence the original query. I'm glad the remove to draft call was right - but he's created tens of these virtually empty pages now. Move 'em all to draft? Speedy? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Alexandermcnabb I will check within the next 12 hours, maybe sooner. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Alexandermcnabb - I have tagged a bundle of them for deletion. This will start a deletion discussion. If there are more of them about which you have concerns, follow the procedures described in the AFD page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks - and phew, I was worried that draftifying was the wrong call! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Alexandermcnabb - I think that the right call at this point is not draftifying but letting the community decide, which is what will happen on about 16 December, when the AFD closes. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Please see the article. I cleaned the advertising style as much as possible and brought the criteria of significance. Thank you very much! 95.153.130.99 (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I created the page of this article first and the other page of this article is completely wrong in my point of view. I want my draft to be redirected to other page, so can you help me in this? Regards Unknownnreasonn (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, 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) 16:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon. Thanks for moving this to the draft namespace. I wasn't sure whether the creator and the subject were the same (though that seems highly likely); so, I didn't do so myself and decided to leave it for an AfC reveiwer. Please note though that another SPA editor has created Khalil Berro which means both a draft and an article are no longer needed. The article has been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G11 and then there's also this. If you, based upon your experience as an AfC reviewer, feel the subject is notable, then perhaps the article can be kept; otherwise, it might be a good idea to redirect it back to the draft (if that's possible) and let it finish the AfC process. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Marchjuly - As a reviewer, I very seldom think that the subject of an autobiography is notable so as to deserve an article, and in the rare case that the subject is notable, it is even less common for the autobiography to be a useful draft. (Even if the subject is notable, the draft usually needs to be stubbed down to a lede sentence and started over.) This is not an exception, and appears to be simply a self-promoting teenager, and besides he appears to be sockpuppeting. I think that the best thing to do with the version in article space is to have it deleted somehow, and that is almost always what should be done with articles that are persistently created by SPAs. I do not really care much how the article is deleted, whether G11, A7, PROD, or AFD. I very seldom tag a biography as G11, but I am often satisfied if someone else tags a biography as G11, and this is fine. I do not really care what happens to the draft as long as it is not accepted, and I do not object to having it tagged for G11 also. If the admin declines the G11 on the article, I am willing to write the AFD or to support an AFD. Does that answer your question? The article needs deleting somehow. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've got no problem with either the draft or article being deleted if they're deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia. I was just giving the creator the benefit of doubt because technically it's not against policies or guidelines for someone to try and create an article about themselves, especially if they do so via AfC. However, the appearance of two SPAs to try and create an article about this person not only on English Wikipedia, but also on German Wikipedia is of a concern due to the possible sock puppetry or meat puppetry and even perhaps some WP:UPE. Those things are clearly problems that need to be sorted out regardless of what ultimately happens to the draft or article. Sometimes when someone posts a question at the Teahouse like WP:THQ#Unable to move page, they intentions are good and it's just their execution that is poor. Many editors trying to create articles about themselves don't realize that COI and AUTO apply to them as editors regardless of their choice of username; so, they simply create a new account on the mistaken assumption that doing so means they're in the clear. Innocent misunderstandings are OK, but multiple accounts being created out of the blue to try and create this article on multiple Wikipedia's raises a few red flags and seems to be something mroe than an innocent misundersanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paging User:GPL93 and User:DuncanHill, thinking that all four of us are in basic agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:DuncanHill, Marchjuly and Robert McClenon if it's not sockpuppetry then it is almost certainly a highly coordinated WP:MEAT effort. Also if you look at ZOE "Magazine" and scroll to the bottom of their website, it disclaims that it is owned and operated by Albamedia, an Italian web development/PR/Digital Marketing firm. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(e/c)Thanks, I agree the article should be deleted. I see there's a German article, created today by another SPA. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's actually a third account that has already been blocked today for username violations/promo editing on the article, User:ArtManagementZRH. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's the one that created the German article! DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:GPL93, User:DuncanHill, User:Marchjuly - Yuck. Since they are engaging in promotion on two language encyclopedias, I think that we should insert a comment in the SPI that a global lock may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, could you do that? DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added a note to the SPI. By the way, the blocked account was not blocked for promotional editing but for having a promotional username. It can cure that block by changing its username, but the SPI and the G11s are also waiting for admin attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for the record, one of the above-mentioned accounts has posted at Talk:Khalil Berro contesting the speedy deletion tags that were added. So, it might be better to specific discussion about the merits of the article to that talk page to make it easier for others to participate and keep Robert's user talk becoming a dramafest. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update on Khalil Berro

User:Marchjuly, User:DuncanHill, User:GPL93 - The sockpuppetry of the three accounts has been confirmed and those accounts were blocked. The G11 was declined but the administrator instead nominated the article for AFD, where it has several Delete !votes and no Keep !votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert,

I have edited the page as per suggestions. Can you please review and help to get rid off the messages on the top?

Thanks. Nogreat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogreat (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Thank you for kindly reviewing Draft:Jeffrey K. West. The ambiguity as to whether this is the same person as already exists on wikipedia has been resolved (they are 2 different people!), would you be able to revisit? Many thanks indeed if you can! KerstingFan (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Robert McClenon: Please kindly provide your opinion on the AfD of the Taingda Princess if you have free times. You have a very good understanding of Wikipedia policies and have great knowledge of the Wikipedia. Your are my respected editor on Wikipedia. Thanks 185.205.141.123 (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop declining notable films. It is obvious that you have zero understanding of how WP:GNG and WP:NFF works. I already replied to you on WT:NFF about it, but you appear to be pushing ahead with your incorrect beliefs. Your argument was the loser one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Evan Hansen (film). Please learn from your mistaken assumptions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert,

the Wikipedia page of the "Garrett relation" Wikipedia:Garrett_relation was recently deleted. C.f. also your recent essay:

User:Robert_McClenon/Garrett_relation

Userfication of Timothy Garrett was approved. Now Nosebagbear (talk) promised to help to set up that page, but so far unfortunately without success (ignoring my kind calls for help at any level). I'm likely to not have the required experience on Wikipedia to be allowed to create such a page myself, am I? If so, how should I proceed? Without any help, I'd likely be required to successfully help edit a certain number of pages first before being allowed to work on a userfication?

In any case, I'd welcome any kind of help. Best Gordonschuecker (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, another new design. Not sure how to edit my above post. The first link was supposed to be this one: Garrett relation Gordonschuecker (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just letting you know that I removed your marking of Draft:Moana (movie character) as under-review since it's been more than 12 hours (about 16) since your last edit to the draft. Assuming you maybe forgot to remove the template or something along those lines after the submitter of said draft went on IRC asking about it. Chess (talk) (please use ((ping|Chess)) on reply) 00:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Chess - I was interrupted, or I interrupted myself, but was planning to accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[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!} 06:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unconnected Contributor Requested changes have been made by AnonymousSource718 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousSource718 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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!} 20:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Liz - Well, well. This time it was only the redirect that was deleted, because I disambiguated the draft, and declined the draft, but the draft was tweaked, and isn't eligible for G13 until next month. It also appears that something such as copyvio or PII may have been redacted. Well, well. As I said, sometimes I ridicule these. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about this unnecessary notice, Robert. Sometimes Twinkle has a mind of its own. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Liz - Maybe I wasn't clear. Don't apologize for the unnecessary notices. Sometimes I like to ridicule them. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, seeking further clarification on the decline of the draft. I have been looking through lists of other (non-incumbent) congressional candidates who have lost their elections and, in rare cases, the notability standard does not seem to have been applied and pages exist. Thank you. Healyathome (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Healyathome - First, I didn't intend to decline your draft this time. Something is not working with your draft, and I am trying to resubmit it. Second, the notability standard is general notability. Some defeated candidates satisfy it, and some don't. I would like to submit your draft so that it can be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert,

I have searched I cannot find a second copy of this Final Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) note there are other Nations that have designated some of there Forces as Paracommando are you mistaken these for My Draft which is Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) if you find this other copy of Paracommando Qualification OR Para-Commando it may not relate to my draft but if a second copy does exist can yo forward it to me and I will delete it.

Kind Regards

Exsap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exsap (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[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 Robert McClenon was:

Test decline in order to try to resubmit.

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:Cynthia Wallace 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:Cynthia Wallace, 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Jehochman has just edited in your section, changing some of the headings to bold text. Are you happy with these changes? If you would prefer to have the subsections, I encourage you to revert Jehochman. I have left a note on their talk page about editing in other user's sections. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am inferring that you mean in my ArbCom statement on the Periodic Table dispute? I will check. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep. Apologies if this wasn't clear. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I figured it out. I reverted the pseudo-clerking. I don't really care one way or the other, but I am annoyed at what seems to be a violation of both general talk page guidelines, which say not to mess with other people's stuff, and ArbCom guidelines, which say that only the clerks can mess with other people's stuff. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Celestina007 - Duh. Twinkle strikes again. That wasn't my autobiography, but Larisa Ciortan's autobiography. Oh well. And no, don't turn off my notifications of the G13's. Sometimes I like to ridicule them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh my! I don’t know why this kinda shit keeps happening. So sorry mate. Celestina007 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Sir My Article is Now Completed Can you please Review This and remove the tag from the article ? I wish that I add more references in the article but I am afraid about your Decision can you once again review Shabahat Ali Shah I am sure that I have completed all Requirement — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrXhadow (talk • contribs) 04:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:MrXhadow - The article has been deleted. If you want advice about improving it in draft space, you may ask at the Teahouse, but you should answer the question about conflict of interest directly. Also, if you are having difficulty in editing in English, you may edit in the Wikipedia of another language; we have more than 300 Wikipedias in different languages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sean Quinn (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Quinn (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a Critiques section and more references to the article (Draft:SHIFT (company)), and added minor changes in order that it doesn't seem to be of the viewpoint of the company itself anymore. --Wikirofl (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, This draft which you had declined for article creation was actually for a school assignment and I was supposed to have merged it with Yued instead of requesting article creation. If I could most sincerely have my article back, I would be extremely appreciative! I hope you are having a fabulous day and the week oncoming will be pleasant! :)

--Sunlew30 (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Sunlew30 - I am replying on your talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jason Osborne (politician), 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, not a problem at all. I would have accepted it as well. I was just concerned about the sourcing, coupled with the three sentences. Definitely notable as a subject, but it was not where it needed to be, IMO. Bkissin (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there Robert,

I wanted to raise a few issues I had with your reasoning for declining my submission to make this an article.

You stated here that I "reference-bombed with low quality sources such as Youtube and Twitter", which is just untrue. I used only one of each for the aforementioned sources, because I am aware that they are very last resort sources. I would have looked elsewhere for the information I needed but the tweet came from the artist himself and the Youtube clip featured the provided description of information.

You also stated that the discography section was too long. Many other musician's Wikipedia articles and their discography section look very similar, if not identical, to my one, nor did I provide any unnecessary information about the artist's discography. However, I could simply move the discography section to a new and seperate discography article, if that seems more suitable to you.

I have been in touch with the artist himself and has stated that the article is very thorough, that he was very impressed with the work done on the page and corrected all information that was incorrect. I am simply asking you to review your issues with the page, as I believe that I put all the necessary requirements to make this an official article, referencing back to other musician's pages constantly whilst writing it up.

I hope to be in touch soon and hope this message reaches you well.

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthisxephyr (talk • contribs)

(talk page watcher) @Isthisxephyr: Don't look at other stuff.

It's not Robert's issues, as if they're his problem -- the problem is we have standards that new articles need to meet. Don't look at old articles that someone probably needs to go fix.

Instead, follow these simple and clear instructions in this link, and you will have an article ready to be approved right away. If you can't follow those instructions, then it's probably because the subject doesn't meet the minimum standards of notability we require. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Isthisxephyr - What is your association with Sega Bodega? Please read the conflict of interest policy and make the appropriate declaration. You say more than once that you are in touch with the artist himself. Wikipedia does not consist of articles that are approved by their own subjects. A draft with 51 references to a subject that does not satisfy musical notability or general notability is only a reference-bombed draft. There is a myth among submitters of articles to Wikipedia that, since references are required, the key to acceptance of a draft is adding more references. References are a necessary but not sufficient condition for acceptance. When I see a draft that has 51 references, and that doesn't address the notability criteria directly, I notice that the draft has been reference-bombed. Maybe User:Ian.thomson and I should have both noticed the signs of a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Robert_McClenon - I am not associated with Sega Bodega. I messaged him after my initial creation and publishing of the article as a fan of his work. So as for your conflict of interest argument, that should not be a part of this discussion. As for the reasons cited by User:Ian.thomson, I have read through the linked page and still believe that my article complies. The vast majority of my references are professionally-published, mainstream and journalistic sources. I would have also added any academic sources, however I came up short in my search for them. I understand that you may not have heard of this artist, but if you give him a brief research, I think you'll find pretty easily that his underground success is only growing by the year, as he becomes more sought after for collaboration by other artists in his field. So as far musical notability goes as well, I feel like he meets that criteria also. I believe that the majority of my references cited in the draft are credible and I ask you to review it again. Kind regards.

Hi, I apologise that the students editors submitted their work through AfC for this article, I had advised them not to do that, they were to work on the content they wanted to add in their sandbox until they were happy to add it to the mainspace article. They seemed to have tried to add the content earlier but reverted the edit probably as the citations didn't copy with the content. It should be an uncontroversial merge? Smirkybec (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Smirkybec - Are you the instructor? If so, thank you for monitoring their work. No need to apologize. The student apparently didn't understand your direction, but there is no problem. The addition of information to the article should be straightforward. I don't plan to monitor the updating of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am indeed! I'm keeping an eye on the various articles, but when they don't all sign up the Outreach Dashboard finding all of their Sandboxes becomes impossible (added the joys of virtual teaching!). I'm very excited about what they have found out about a relatively obscure author though! They have done their work on the research, which is the more important bit really. Thanks so much for ushering it into a merge, hugely appreciated. Smirkybec (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! Just wanted to pop in and wish you a happy Turkey day:-) Mollifiednow (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I noticed the page has been tagged for deletion. Is it possible to make necessary changes now and resubmit it again? Imdavid21 (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Imdavid21 - When a page is nominated for deletion, the place to ask about it is in the deletion discussion, which is at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Zeeshan_Khan_(businessman). I didn't nominate it for deletion, and have not yet made my statement in the deletion discussion. It would have been a good idea to ask what changes needed to be made when it was rejected the first time. Instead you resubmitted it after it had been rejected, without asking what the reviewers wanted. You insulted the reviewers and the Wikipedia community by ignoring the rejection and resubmitting it, which was gaming the system. It isn't useful to insult the reviewers and the Wikipedia community, and only ask about making changes after it is nominated for deletion.

Ask the question about making changes and resubmitting in the deletion discussion, but I do not expect that they will be favorable to a request to make changes and resubmit. The community holds paid editors to a high standard, and does not appreciate having paid editors try to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your review of my article draft! I just wanted to clarify that Innova Capital is a totally separate company from Innova Capital Partners. I can see why there would be some confusion there though lol. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediamagic.123 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert! Thanks for your comment at DRN. I haven't used DRN before and am not overly familiar with it, so my request may have been misplaced. I was hoping to avoid another village pump discussion, though, as I fear that that would turn into just another debate about the merits of the respective pages, which as you know from the request is something I consider to have already happened, and I'm opposed on principle to allowing Moxy to continually revive it by not accepting the result (effectively a form of forum shopping). In other words, while the implications of which page is chosen are certainly big, I view the locus of the dispute as the much smaller matter of just affirming and enforcing the consensus that has already been reached. Would you consider that appropriate for the DRN, and if not, would you have any other suggestions about where might be an appropriate forum to take the issue? Thanks again for your assistance in this. Regards, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Sdkb - Well, moderated discussion, either at DRN or anywhere else, is voluntary. If you and User:Moxy both want to have a moderated discussion, I am willing to moderate it, and will create a user subpage for it. If you and User:Moxy want to have an unmoderated discussion, you can do it on either your user talk page or their user talk page. At this point, I suggest that you ask them at User talk:Moxy whether they want to have a discussion, and where they want to have it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not entirely sure from your statements whether you are portraying this as a content issue or a conduct issue. Please explain to me briefly what the history is. I am a little puzzled as to what you want to discuss in particular with User:Moxy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It somewhat straddles the line between them. I'm not sure I can give the history more concisely than I did in the DRN request, but if you're confused about anything I wrote there, I'm happy to clarify. What I'm looking for is a forum in which uninvolved editors can look at the situation and (I would hope) say "yes, this has already been discussed enough to form a precedent, and Moxy should not be reverting and pretending that there is no consensus". Does that help explain? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I also see that Moxy has filled out their summary of the dispute from within the closed discussion, which will hopefully help make clear that I wasn't withholding anything from my summary. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure whatever works.--Moxy 🍁 21:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm seeing red here . Anyway, you are right about SPAs sometimes being just someone with a narrow interest and only one account. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:davidwr - Typos corrected. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, I saw the subsequent typo, which you fixed right away, and thought "so I'm not the only one that does that." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeff West, 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) 04:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeffrey James West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeff West.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I am pleased on your contribution to Wikipedia according to my observations. I award you this because you have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia. 🇮🇳DRCNSINDIA (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, I've noticed that you often add "neutral" votes to deletion discussions, sometimes without any additional explanation, like this one. As someone who frequently closes these deletion discussions, I can tell you that I completely disregard such votes (especially the ones with no explanation) and they have zero effect on the resulting consensus. In my mind, they are equivalent to not voting at all. Of course, they're not harmful, and you're welcome to continue making these kinds of votes if you want to. Just thought I'd let you know my perspective as someone who closes these discussions. If you're so inclined to explain, I'm curious what you hope to achieve with these kinds of votes. ‑Scottywong| [confess] || 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) (courtesy ping Scottywong) On the other hand, I sometimes do non-admin closures. For me, your "neutral" is in effect a vote "in the direction of no consensus." I realize that's not what it really is of course. As a non-admin closer, my first question after "do I want to participate" is "is this eligible for a non-admin close." Anything with more "non-keeps" (including neutrals) than "keeps" is not, at least not for this nac'er. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Scottywong - I am probably making a mistake if I say Neutral without any further statement. It is indeed my intention that the closer not give any weight to what I say. When I say something after Neutral, I am really saying it for the possible information of any other editors, to say what arguments I think should be disregarded. So we are not in disagreement about my comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Robert. Thank you for your note a few months ago as I try to update the new Wikipedia page for Draft:Steve & Bluey. (I am having trouble figuring out how to send you a message, so please do forgive delays in responding. Hopefully this reaches you.) I have included more references that I hope will be approved. Are they?

Thanks again for your time and help! Kindly, Steve User talk:Writerone

User:Writerone - Are you the Steve who is part of Steve & Bluey? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both the draft and the article are actually about the same season of Hell's Kitchen - Season 19, which is currently airing on ITV in the United Kingdom first. - (124.197.55.28 (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For quarterbacking a successful resolution to the French Revolution dispute. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 00:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must commend your understanding of the issue, endless patience, and resurrection of an RfC that lead to the solving of the issue. It is greatly appreciated. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, you recently cleaned up a misunderstanding with the article outlined above. I thank you for having taken the time to do that. One other thing you said was to address my conflict of interest problem; I went to the Teahouse and sought their advice, and they just told me to outline my reasoning in my user page, which I did. Would this be enough for a reviewer such as yourself to understand that I have no conflict of interest? Thank you, LMPAJ (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I liked your questions to the Arbs in the election. I was thinking of asking one like that, and I believe you have taken care of it! --David Tornheim (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:David Tornheim - A lot of the questions have to do with principles, such as civility, and with how cases should be decided. I think that it is also a good idea to ask questions about what cases will be accepted for hearing and decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you skipped L235 at here. Inadvertent? I'd like to see the answers to your questions there and would like to ask them if you don't plan to. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:David Tornheim - Not really even inadvertent so much as system glitch. It appears that my web browser didn't get a response from the server. There was a user error on my part, but only in not checking whether I had gotten a response. Resubmitted. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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!} 14:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Liz - Well, well, It only notifies me of one of the two copies of the page, not the one that I disambiguated it to. Well, well. (No, don't suppress the notifications. Sometimes I ridicule them.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Posthuman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posthumous.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. I submitted Draft: Evan Falchuk to Articles for Creation. I'm afraid my submission probably came off as very rude without acknowledging the 5 year-old articles for deletion discussion and sharing the new in-depth profiles that have been published since then. I attempted to do just that but accidentally posted my comment on my personal Talk page, rather than the Talk page of the draft. If you have a minute to review the four citations I provided here against the general notability guideline, I would very much appreciate your impartial set of eyes.

Best regards. Evan Falchuk (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Evan Falchuk - I did see the information that you had posted on your personal talk page. I don't have anything to add to what User:Bearcat has said. I didn't read the references that you provided, and I do not plan to read the references. I have reviewed a lot of autobiographies, and I have given more attention to yours than I do to most, but it does not persuade me of the need to read the references. If you resubmit your autobiography and ask me to leave it for another reviewer, and ask that they read the references, I will leave it alone, but I cannot guarantee whether they will read the references.

I'm having a problem with an editor whose behaviour seems to me aggressive and unreasonable. You can read our exchanges at Immaculate conception - revision history. As usual in these cases, it's utterly trivial, but it's nevertheless annoying. Essentially, he claims that because countries can't see (in a literal sense), we can't say that "France saw..." I reverted him and asked him to go to talk, he reverted me in turn and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Achar_Sva&action=edit&section=46 left a note on my personal page warning me that I was edit warring, which seems a bit rich}. I'd like to take this to dispute resolution, more for his behaviour than the content - can you suggest a suitable forum? Achar Sva (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Achar Sva - Well, both you and the other editor were edit-warring. I don't see a conduct issue. I suggest taking the content issue to Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

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

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Create-protecting isn't something that occurred to me, is all. If the user tries to create the page again, let me know. Do you want me to move it for you?

As for whether it's an autobiography - there's definitely a CoI there, but I'm not 100% sure I'd go with autobiography rather than a relative. DS (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ive done a lot more work to this draft to address the notability issues you flagged a while ago. Perhaps time to revisit if you’ve got a moment? Many thanks david — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dz3 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the ping on the above. I was quite tempted to accept it even as it was but its a little out of my usual area of expertise (as it were). Of course the AfC comments disappear when the page is moved to main! Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Eagleash - There are certain drafts that I think should be accepted in general, and they include species. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, and this is not the case here, I think that species should be accepted even when biologists disagree as to whether there is a distinct species. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I wouldn't necessarily disagree and I would have accepted it but for the ref errors which I was loathe to add to the pile in mainspace. I also had the 'feeling' that it might have been copied from somewhere. Anyway; I note what you think. Eagleash (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, LMPAJ again. As always, I hope you're well. As I mentioned in my previous unanswered message to you, I am just a little confused as to how the process of publishing the draft will continue. You outlined not to resubmit, so I'm just a little confused as to how to proceed. Will the draft's publishing state be discussed at the draft's talk page from now on? What does the draft having a talk page mean, essentially? I would be grateful if you could tell me how to proceed. I am more than willing to work with you to make the drafts' publication a reality. Please reply to this message, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you, LMPAJ (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:LMPAJ - I will try to summarize the situation. You submitted the article both in draft space and in article space, which is not helpful, and annoys the reviewers. In article space, Hector Carlos Lora was redirected to Passaic, New Jersey. Now, if you think that there should be a biography of a living person of Lora, you need to discuss the redirect. I said not to resubmit the draft because the question is not just one of accepting the draft but of accepting the draft in place of the redirect. My first thought is to ask for advice at the Teahouse. I think that you already did, and that someone did not think that Lora is notable. So now what you want is advice on how to discuss whether he satisfies general notability after all. My second thought is that you can submit a Redirects for Discussion request to delete the redirect and accept the draft. That will result in a 7-day discussion, which should focus on whether he is sufficiently notable for his own article. If you ask for advice at the Teahouse, you can ask them whether RFD is the forum to discuss acceptance in place of the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mr. McClenon, I am sending a message through here because you asked me to disclose the name of my instructor, as this Wikipedia article I am writing is for an assignment. I am currently studying under Professor David Matthes at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Also, I saw that you proposed a merger for my page and the current page on Wikipeida, and I was wondering if I should wait for that to resolve, or if I should edit the existing page and transfer everything that way. Thank you for reviewing my submission and for your time. DylanCorcoran31 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:DylanCorcoran31 - The merging is done by editing the existing page. That is, you can do the editing. The merge request that I made is not a formal request that needs to run a course. If you do the editing, that will be greatly appreciated because it will improve the quality of the article. Is your instructor a Wikipedia editor? I ask this because we, the Wikipedia reviewers, see a lot of class assignments involving Wikipedia, some of which are consistent with our policies and guidelines, and some of which are not, and we want to be sure that the instructor has not given any incorrect guidance. Have you been given any guidance by your instructor, or are you simply contributing to Wikipedia? In any case, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, my professor is a Wikipedia editor, and has been assigning this for his students for years. As a result, I have no reason to believe that the guidance he has provided goes against any of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Thank you for the clarification on the merge request, and I will begin working on editing the existing article. DylanCorcoran31 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:DylanCorcoran31 - Maybe I wasn't clear. Do you know what Wikipedia account David Matthes edits under? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Kp2016rockin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kinderwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Someone basically copied the draft page and put it in the article page which is why the draft was declined.

kpgamingz (rant me) 15:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Robert McClenon, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Starzoner (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Robert McClenon, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

@Robert McClenon May God bless you and your family with all goodness and happiness. Merry Christmas! RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Robert McClenon, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Mollifiednow (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Mollifiednow (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, Robert McClenon! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding ((subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings))

Thanks a million Sir/Ma'am for the review you gave for article Teri Laadli Main. Though, this article is nominated for deletion, the review that you have given for this article really means a lot and these flowers and cake are the least I could give in return. Once again, thanks a lot Sir/Madam! --Aleyamma38 (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon,

First: Merry Christmas! And thank you for being the moderator in the DRN Discussion about Chopin. I was indisposed the last week and on Holiday, that‘s why I didn‘t contribute anymore. I now noticed that it started to turn out a bit like the talk on the Chopin talk page even if you did a very good and impartial job. I read that the suggestions had been moved to a RFC, but I can‘t find it there. Could you please show me where I can find it? Thank you, best--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Chip-chip-2020 - Look at Talk:Frédéric_Chopin. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have addressed your comments at my talk page and on the talk page of the discussed draft. Feel free to discuss it there and merry christmas. Domnipal (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings Robert McClenon! Thank you very much! Happy 2021 New Year! Bird Vision (talk)

Hello Robert McClenon. In declining the submission, you noted that "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia." It did not when I began working on the article or by the time I submitted it and the existing page was only created within the last 48 hours. Your notability concerns aside, my submission is more thorough and was created first; how does that work? Thank you. --0h_$nap 13:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you revive this discussion? You said you weren't replied to within 48 hours, but both me and another user replied to you. The DR was never given a chance to resolve anything. --Steverci (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Steverci - Reopened. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]