| I want to add a new article

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Robert McClenon: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Happy New Year elves)) to send this message

Empire AS ^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding ((subst:New Year 2)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS ^Talk! 13:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Robert McClenon: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Starzoner (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Happy New Year elves)) to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the speedy review of the page draft:Couch (Band). I am confused as to why the page was denied. I included relevant references that were provided by independent sources and which explained the history of the group that was included in the article. Specifically, according to the Criteria for musicians and ensembles (notability guidelines), the group satisfies the first criteria. It is also confusing to me to see that articles such as here is allowed to exist although it contains no references. My article includes relevant publications in which the group was highlighted. I appreciate your reconsideration.Thank you so much and happy new year! Jaredgoz (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Robert McClenon! I don't want to waste your time, but I was hoping you could pass along some suggestions on what to fix specifically in Webull so that it is not written like an advert. I greatly appreciate any assistance! —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert McClennon,

In reply to your interesting comments on my Arbitration request (which I've withdrawn last night) I would like to say a few words:

1) I would welcome an effort as suggested by you "to moderate a discussion to lead to a possible compromise, or (more likely) to facilitate a neutrally worded RFC." I foresee a limiting factor though which has hampered earlier attempts, which is a continuous distortion of the facts and the unwillingness by third parties to verify evidence.

2) About the content/not content issue, this appears to be a Catch 22 situation:

The fringe theories as such are not new. There's a general consensus among scholars about them. The only content dispute would be that the other two editors suggest that the fringe theories are not a very relevant part of the book but that the alleged evidence underpinning the fringe theories is to be viewed as separate, credible information. This is part of their advocacy. The same goes for their selection of sources and quotes: all part of the advocacy.

However, the clearest indications of advocacy are the many uncivil attacks against scholars (or anyone else) who are critical of the book and who reject its main arguments as having no basis in science. I focused on that in the limited space I had available to present the case in. Please note that one of the parties has posted another attack in their statement: HoC's suggestion that scholars who qualifiy the fringe theories as a form of genocide denial are somehow part of an international scheme to silence a critical journalist on behalf of a foreign regime.

The Guide to Arbitration states: [1] "Arbitrators are not subject experts and the Arbitration Committee therefore does not rule on content disputes. As a result, they are hesitant to making a ruling on the grounds that one side is right in a content dispute. There are minor exceptions to this; for instance, the committee has historically taken a dim view of individuals using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy." (my emphasis) I may have misunderstood this exception but if I did, that wasn't explained by any of the arbitrators so far.

Anyway, I've withdrawn the arbitration request because of the uncivil remarks and the overload of unsubstantiated allegations posted on the page, which seemed to be effective red herrings. But I would much appreciate any sincere attempt to resolve this matter, by you or anyone else. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your offer to help get some neutral advice is generous. I add my request to Saflieni's. This recent disagreement would be a good place to start. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The dispute linked above, concerning WP:SYNTH, is now causing edit-warring at the article, so if you are available to intervene, now would be a good time. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just adding this comment: The resumption by HoC and Buidhe of edit warring to get rid of my edits, even the old ones, and the continued posting of insults against scholars and me personally might need some scrutiny too: HoC calling a senior scholar "deplorably ignorant"; mocking another one based on a shallow internet search; falsely accusing me of 20* years of hiding my eyes from RPF crimes; of "narrowness"; of "worshipping" the established scholarship; or qualifying my careful explanations of content and context as "reasons for not caring" (about what?) Not to mention their ownership behaviour expressed for instance by saying "we're done here" when they run out of arguments; the posting of suggestive edit summaries accusing me of dishonesty, etc. I'm curious to learn what else the arbitrators expected would happen after handing them a free pass.Saflieni (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saflieni Please do not deflect this serious issue, which is about policy and what our articles say in WIKIVOICE. Even if I were Darth Vader wearing a hat made from baby kittens, WP policy concerning WP:SYNTH and WP:OR should govern our articles. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already answered this several times: I fairly summarized what's in the book according to NPOV guidelines. OR has nothing to do with it. Repeating the same argument ad nauseam even on someone else's Talk page, while ignoring my explanations, is not respectful, nor helpful. Please don't repeat that whole discussion here again.Saflieni (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now this again [2]. It's pure harrassment. Saflieni (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caution

User:Saflieni - Do not say that other editors are telling lies, even if you really think that they are making statements that are not true. That seems to have been the problem last month, and that seems to be what they have reported you for this time also. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert McClenon, please read my detailed response to their complaint on the ANI page before jumping to conclusions. Besides, I've been (falsely) accused of not telling the truth many times, including on the Arbcom page. No offense, but I didn't see any cautioning in those situations. Saflieni (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon, how would you rate administrators when they falsely accuse me of lying, using words like "bullshit" and providing a diff that actually contradicts their accusation? [3] That was just one little detail of an elaborate uncivil rant which, as they explained, was inspired by their "irritation". On their personal Talk page they use words like "shit" to describe my careful explanations of the literature: "To see someone shit on that in that way, that's more than a bit hurtful." [4]. Besides incredibly rude, it's not a very neutral approach to the subject. I'll spare you their other rants but judging from their exchange with HoC they're quite cozy. Which Wikipedia policies are being violated here? I'm eager to learn. Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DRN

Any editors who are in good standing can file a request at DRN. The purpose of a case at DRN is to improve the article, not to discuss editor conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can you tell me the status and how much time will it take to merge. Anuragpathak12d (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Anuragpathak12d - You can do the merging. Copy the information from the draft into the article. If you want more advice on how to do the merging, you can ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, thanks for the review on both of my SailGP articles. You declined the 2021–22 article because it "is a future event of a sort that does not normally have a separate article until the competition begins", which I wouldn't disagree with normally. However, the 2021–22 season technically did start with the Sydney 2020 event and then the rest of championship was delayed. Would you reconsider on these grounds?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The submitted draft has satisfied all musical notability criteria for unreleased music, the requirements of which include independent coverage by reliable sources and the musical notability criteria states that an "album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". The title, tracklisting and release date for an album due for release in just over one month has been satisifed with the article for Who Am I?. Importantly, what this criteria does not mandate is requiring reviews which aren't possible for an unreleased album. The standards being applied to this article would also mean that no articles could be created for any unreleased or soon-to-be release albums so there are unequal standards being applied between different unreleased albums. Srodgers1701 (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Srodgers1701 - You can resubmit the draft with an explanation similar to your statement above, in AFC comments or on the draft talk page, and a reviewer may review it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, I am the author of the article Jeffery D. Molkentin. Though I am technically related to the person in the article, I have never actually met Dr. Molkentin. Genuinely just trying to make a credible article about a man who has my last name. Just wondering what my next steps are in the article itself? what about the sources are inacademic? any help would be appreciated! thank you for taking the time to review the article. Rmolkentin (talk) 1:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Jessyalgar (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:AsharqNews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have submitted a page AsharqNews, but you have redirected it to a completely different page called El Sharq TV. These 2 entities have nothing to do with each other. Redirecting one to the other is not good for Wikipedia readers. Why was this done? Please bring back the version I have submitted and let it have a page of its own.

Jessyalgar (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Jessyalgar - I have taken a quick look at the history. I see that there are two different entities. I see that there has been move-warring. The move-warring has been largely by User:Fahadharbi. I also see that the reviewers who have tried to straighten the situation out include User:Praxidicae, User:Onel5969, User:TheBirdsShedTears, User:Curbon7, User:Davidwr, and User:Blablubbs. I see that there are conflict of interest issues that have not been addressed. I see that the situation is messy. I have not reviewed it in detail. Are you working for either of the news agencies? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Fahadharbi - Stop Move-Warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon No I am not. It is just frustrating to see the confusion happening and reflecting on Wikipedia, especially that the Asharq News page now appears on Google but takes users to a completely different page. Messy situation indeed like you have mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessyalgar (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do I understand correctly that there is no option to eliminate the sexuality content with no replacement? The current text itself is recent and does not represent any consensus. SPECIFICO talk 13:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SPECIFICO - When I created the RFC, no one suggested a nothing option. You are welcome to state that it is your opinion that there should be no section, and the closer can draw any conclusion that is based on policy-based arguments in response to the RFC. If an option of no section had been suggested at the time, I would have listed it. I was having difficulty getting the editors to provide specific input because they were mostly restating what they had already said. After the RFC is closed, if you have a different suggestion, such as to leave the topic out, you can always start another RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert, I appreciate your efforts at DR. However, I've been very clear about my view from the outset, and as I beleive was noted there, I was among those who were not even notified in the DR request despite our activity in the talk page discussion. Are you suggesting I start a second concurrent RfC, or that I immediately launch one following the closure of this one. This does not seem to be working very well.@Mathsci: SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The contributions on "sexuality" were started by IPs from Zurich on 12 November 2020. From the German punctuation, the content, the writing style and the single purpose nature, they were re-added by Chip-chip-2020. There have been attempts to add further options for the RfC, which just seem to muddy the waters—they are only marginally related to the music and life of Chopin. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure how to go about it, but Noteduck needs to be heard in a forum that doesn't disrupt editing. --Hipal (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the question? That forum can be the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Either you or User:Noteduck or another editor can file the case request. Is there another question? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This relates to the dispute over the PragerU page, which I maintain is a serious problem that needs resolving. I would like to file a dispute resolution request but I was going to wait until the matter had been decided on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case page, though in practice it looks certain to be rejected.[5] Again, I'm sorry and didn't intend to waste the arbitration committee's time Noteduck (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're correct that the arbitration request will be rejected. Go ahead and familiarize yourself with WP:DRN and prepare the request. --Hipal (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RM, thank you for the offer to mediate. Has that offer been accepted? I think Noteduck has restored disputed material too many times at this point. I'm considering opening an ANI but wanted to get your opinion first. Springee (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Noteduck, Hipal, and Springee: - Acceptance of my offer to mediate can be done by filing a case request at DRN. That has not yet been done, so my request has not yet been accepted. I am ready to open a case as soon as I see it (probably no more than 12 hours after it is filed). When I accept the request, I will state that the editors are expected to follow DRN Rule A, which among other things says not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. It also says to be civil and concise. I will then ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement saying what they want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that other editors want to change. We need to keep the discussion focused on improving the article. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd expected Noteduck to have continued monitoring this discussion and to have started a request by now... --Hipal (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#PragerU_-_false_balance_and_whitewashing_by_omission --Hipal (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid this is looking like a waste of time. I'm not withdrawing yet, but I expect my next statement will be to do so. Thank you again for your help. --Hipal (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you again. --Hipal (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks Robert McClenon ,Hi! Can you see this page Draft:Rt RanaRajuiu (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your advice was, "at this point, think of this as printing the ballot" A helpful turn of phrase to use when advising people how to start an RfC. Occasionally I peruse the DRN just to see what's going on. It seems to be a 'high friction environment' but good results eventually come out of it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi your comment was there is nothing on any article me working in IT. Please see below links it says clearly I am an IT Professional in severla interviews by news channels and even the company itself making an interview about me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdJZqIuDzKc https://www.indiatoday.in/television/reality-tv/story/who-is-javed-khan-all-you-want-to-know-about-india-s-got-talent-8-winner-1419906-2018-12-30 ( point no. 1 and 3 clearly states Javed works in IT as well) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javed khan39 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I withdraw this resubmission until more info is added to the draft? HistoricalAccountings (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Kahului (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Charlie Chung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I attempted to update the existing Charlie Chung page but Tewapack rejected my edits as unnecessary or out of place. Since my page is much more extensive, the only way I see is to delete the existing page and replace with my page.

Kahului (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Kahului (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Charlie Chung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there a way to merge my page into the existing page? What suggestions do you have to insert my page?

Kahului (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kahului - You have a conflict of interest. You need to request edits on the talk page, Talk:Charlie Chung. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article you reviewed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shuhua So you said that there is another draft that is also about (G)I-dle member, Shuhua. What should i do to make article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shuhua accepted? BaaBaaTheSheep (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both deletion reviews ended with "No Consensus". But does this mean I can recreate them with the limited sources I gathered? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The deletion reviews are still in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert McClenon, I created two copies because my article draft was not being reviewed for a long time, so I got frustrated, and created an article directly- Veera Ballala IV, without the need for any person to review it. I am sorry and will not commit this mistake ever again.

• LuckyAshwini (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Checkbook (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was editing some online payments entries in Wikipedia and was doing some comparative analysis and discovered this company(Checkbook) wasn't listed. Similar companies already have entries in Wikipedia. I've added references from reputed publications. I do not have conflict of interest or commercial relationship with this company. I saw your comments. I created another article which is in "Draft:Checkbook". I updated reference links, here they are : https://drive.google.com/file/d/184pBL1Aw90bv4YTsFhiwMnZXOpDfQKOY/view?usp=sharing. Also added a screenshot for you.

LuckyAshwini (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You put copy tag on my Draft:Fantastic. I apologize if I had made some bad edits. I request you please review it once again I had made some edits in the draft. Thank you. Sardar Nadir Ali (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry it's auto correct. ((draf:Rantas)) Sardar Nadir Ali (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Arthur Laffer on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment, and at Wikipedia talk:Article titles on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment, and at Talk:Jared Kushner on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 14:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1990 Interstate 75 fog disaster, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki 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 19:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert McClenon

Many thanks for this RfC. I wonder whether if would be of any use requiring the voters stating their conflict of interest with one or more parties - candidates for infobox. The reasons for this suggestion are:

1. so far seeing only votes with conflict of interest (including mine), which is going to make it difficult to derive an outcome that would accurately reflect the relations / extent of involvement of those parties in the war
2. the precedent in Russian Wikipedia, where editors with conflict of interest coordinated their votes.
3. seeing in the RfC a user from a certain country IP (part of the conflict) voting from unregistered IP, despite prior polite suggestion of getting registered. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Basis (linear algebra) 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 09:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, I moved this draft to from Benedict Clarke to Ben Clark but I see you moved it to Benedict Clark (correcting the spelling of the last name). I am assuming I made an error. Apologies and thanks for cleaning up after me. Will you please explain the reason for my education? S0091 (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:S0091 Is the subject named Clark or Clarke? I changed it to Benedict because there are other Ben Clarks. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's Clark. The creator requested it be moved to the correct spelling. Looking through the sources, he is referred to as Ben so I moved it Ben Clark. When I saw you move it again, I thought I made a boo-boo. I trust your decision. Thanks for the reply. S0091 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:S0091 - Ben Clark is a disambiguation page. The draft has to be disambiguated either with an occupational descriptor or by a more complete name. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see. I will check for that in future. Very helpful. Thanks again. S0091 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robert, please take me off your watchlist. WP:CIVIL applies to everyone. Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I very much appreciate you taking the time to repost the template in the proper fashion. You are clearly a helpful editor who is naturally generous with your time.

Could you refer me to a guide that explains how to make a dispute resolution noticeboard posting? If I do so again in the future, I will want to get it right. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 - If you tried to use the template on the DRN project page (and it appears that you did), then something went wrong that was probably not your fault, such as line noise. Please enter a description of what you think the dispute is about. We don't need to worry about what went wrong with the first case filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jon Ossoff 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 14:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies 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 02:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 5, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. I appreciate your help strengthening the Frederick S. Jaffe page. I have posted some new wording that should meet all the requested citations. Please take a look when you have time or refer me to another editor that may be able to post the changes for us. Thanks, Dave DaveJaffe (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

• The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
• It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

• As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
• There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[6]
• The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[7] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
• A large A/B test will start soon.[8] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[9] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How have you not lost your mind? I'm amazed at your stamina and your ability to wade through a swamp of opinions and anger. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, this morning I listened to an account of events two thousand years ago that were worse than anything today, and this afternoon I am watching a rough game. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, User:Nightenbelle - Most of the anger isn't directed at me, and most of the anger isn't worth it, because it is only an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:PragerU on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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 22:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Robert, how are you doing? Please, you could review this draft? I have been helping with this page and I wonder if could be approved, at least, in a stub format. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2021 (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!} 00:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Liz - This is even a stupider message than sometimes, because what I did was to move a sandbox to draft space. We certainly don't need to G13 sandboxen. Oh well. Thanks, Liz. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea if this is the correct place to write - the system is really not very clear and almost unusable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Virginia_Thomas_(pilot)

Anyway, this article was based on a Romanian wiki page: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Thomas So I cannot see why the references are not acceptable.

Regards Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragueimp (talk • contribs) 13:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Pragueimp - I declined the draft for notability reasons, not because of a concern about the references. The editors at the Teahouse can explain to you the difference between notability and references, both of which are required. Different language Wikipedias including Romanian Wikipedia and English Wikipedia have different notability rules (as well as different reference rules). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know what notability means, and this lady is certainly more notable than many entries on Wiki. She was a distinguished pilot during the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragueimp (talk • contribs) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think the latest addition pinged you right, if (big if) you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång - As you said, big if. I am not really interested in commenting on the Jaffe memo unless (big unless) I am asked for my comments by another neutral editor. The Jaffe brothers have the right to protect their father's reputation from lies, but not to use Wikipedia to publish their narrative of what their father did. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Robert McClenon. Our latest posting totally substantiates our "narrative" of the history of our father's memo. I believe we have met all the citation requirements you two have requested. If you are not willing to post it please let us know and we will find another editor. Thanks, DaveJaffe (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very well, I'll give you my opinion on the suggested content/sources within the next few days on Talk:Frederick_S._Jaffe#Jaffe_memo. And you should look for other opinions too. Try WP:APPNOTEing in a few places, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's Health and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. And why not Wikipedia:Help desk. None may bite but the hooks are cheap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• FoureiraStreams (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anemos Agapis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I cannot see why the drafts of Anemos Agapis and Gypsy Woman EP are insufficient or anymore "passing mentions" when they are more well done than the one about the album Ti Poniro Mou Zitas. More than Anglo artists have the right to have individual information pages even if y'all don't know them.

FoureiraStreams (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:FoureiraStreams - I declined Draft:Anemos Agapis because the source is YouTube, but YouTube is not a reliable source. I also asked for charting information. I did not decline Draft:Gypsy Woman (EP). It is still waiting for a review after you resubmitted it. I commented on it. It was declined by User:Eyebeller, and then you resubmitted it.

With both drafts, I advise you to read the musical notability criteria. If you see that one of the drafts satisfies a criterion, state, in AFC comments or on the draft talk page, what criterion is satisfied, so that the reviewer can check it. You are more likely to get your drafts approved that way. If you have more questions about musical notability, you may ask at the Teahouse.

I would advise against comparing your drafts to other articles. We have 6.2 million articles, and some of them are good and some of them are not good.

Do you have a conflict of interest with Eleni Foureira?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! First off, thank you for you comment on my draft Bordrin. It was very helpful. I have rewrote some of my article, as well as changed some of my sources. If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you could look at my draft again. Could you tell me if it is ready to be resubmitted, or if it needs more work? Thanks! DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you understand my exasperation now, and why I complained at an ANI? Even after the noticeboard discussion, the guy insists on editing in his blatantly WP:SYN, WP:OR, and biased version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nutrisystem&diff=1003773069&oldid=1003772900 This is despite the fact that my version is completely anodyne and in keeping with the source. It's not as if I'm shilling for Nutrisystem. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Axis powers 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 17:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sure it is on your watch list in the same way that it is on mine.

The young lady has done a little more since the draft failed last. The author seems as determined as are they all, and also is making a great effort at ignoring firm advice.

There will come a point when the referencing shows her to have verifiable notability but the current refereces are a negative benefit in my view. Fiddle Faddle 19:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Survivors should discuss the article at the article talk page" I am highly amused by this statement and thought you should know. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nightenbelle - If common-sense cautioning doesn't work, then grim humor may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Nagalakshmi Shanmugam. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:Robert McClenon, Thank you for your welcome message on my Talk page back in December, and for your notice about the rules for the topic of abortion. I had reverted a page that I probably ought not have. I will say, as an explanation, that I was reacting to the inclusion of the words "to a Jewish family" in the first sentence. That struck me as having antisemitic intent. The page has been a site of contention in the past and had recently been changed again. I didn't stop to investigate. I simply reverted. I apologize for that, and have since spent time learning the ways and cultures of Wikipedia. Thanks again. Rickjaffe (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Robert McClenon I noticed you closed the Slavery dispute because there hadn't been discussion on the talk page, but when I look- there has been 2 lengthy discussions in the past two months on this topic- so.... Am I confused or missing something? Not that I'm just excited to mediate another dispute.... but I also don't want to unfairly close something- and if I am missing something (Or crazy)... I want to figure it out! Thanks Nightenbelle (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But I see there is an open ANI involving the two editors.... so the DRN is a no go because of that anyway. So I'm just gonna go back to my regularly scheduled editing and stop worrying. Happy Tuesday :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nightenbelle - I didn't read far enough up on the talk page. My mistake. I will change the reason for the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am shooketh. A mistake? Woh. dang. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nightenbelle - Life is very hard for people who can't admit to occasional mistakes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And in the Big Lie dispute, the filer did have the courtesy to admit having made a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Life is hard for a lot of people. Sometimes- I'm a lot of people. Sometimes... I'm not. YEs- the Big lie person did. which is awesome. Shows that the dispute still might have a chance at being resolved. I still wish another volunteer would take it on. I'm afraid that they will not accept either of us as neutral. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just submitted both Draft:Daily challenge and Draft:Tom Ralston on behalves of the creators/editors who pushed them to article namespace in the first place. You should send message to NJM and Excel23 instead unless you want me to leave the submission to them. --George Ho (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:George Ho. I was using the AFCH (Articles for Creation Helper) script, as I almost always do. It sends messages to the person who is identified as the submitter of the draft. If you want messages to go to the originator of the draft that you pushed back into draft space, please submit the draft on behalf of them rather than on behalf of yourself. Or don't submit the draft at all. You pushed those articles back from article space into draft space because they were not ready for article space. Thank you for draftifying them. But then it should be up to the page creator to decide when the page is ready for re-review. Anyway, in the two cases in question, the note on the user talk page was less important than the note on the draft. The note on the user talk page (your talk page) said that I had left a comment on the draft. The comment on the draft was that the draft had been sent back from article space to draft space. It is true that you already knew that, because you had sent it back from article space to draft space. So you can ignore the additional notice about something that you already did.

The short version: Yes. We know that you sent the page from article space to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:KFBG-TV, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:KFBG-TV (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:KFBG-TV during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks so much for your contribution, and keep up the good work! Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I searched the main space and I'm sure it's not covered at all. This is from historical time point of view. Differentiation and Integration remained unsolved for a long time since 80's and before at time of big Calculus. Now a days, it is solved and referenced, and all Mathematics Scientists are using it in their university classes from the highest level to high school levels. So this is famous and important topic showing time passed (on logarithms) while incomplete topic in mathematics. No any article in wikipedia shows this perspective of logarithms and mathematics. This is posted to all voters

Kkmal.Hamouda (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!Just a heads up that this was reported at COIN as some sort of promotional effort. It looks fine to me... Possibly (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Category talk:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent 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 22:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HI there, just a quick question re DRN. I started a new topic on there over the weekend, and the other user has commented. Do I need to add another comment related to that, or should I just continue to wait for a moderator? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Boynamedsue - It says to keep discussion to a minimum until a volunteer opens the case for discussion. When a volunteer opens the case, both editors will normally be asked to make concise statements. In this case, the statement that the other editor made is relatively long, and they will likely be asked to give a shorter version of it anyway. So just wait. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers, that's what I thought. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Marx J Engels (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Passbase (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert. Thanks for reviewing the Passbase post. I wanted to ask about how I could improve the Passbase post because a lot of the company pages read pretty similarly to me. I don't have a good sense of what sounds like it's from the company or not. But I'm also working on a Chatterbug one because it's an app that I use and I think the company is cool. I don't want to spend a lot of time on it and find it violates the same rules.

How should I pay attention to the tone better?

Thanks again!

Marx J Engels (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza 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 17:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir have you been able to see the last few edits by Rklhan and Nightenbelle who earlier said she tecused herself.. They are only stating that my sources are biased when the policies state https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."Danielbr11 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very sad that you were inadequate to stand on the policies on sources and neutrality. You allowed nightenbelle to fabricate policy and bully resulting in the only failed request on the noticeboard. Fortunately admins can see all this with the arbitration I just submitted.Danielbr11 (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The RfC on the PragerU page attracted a fair bit of editor attention, but has been dead since January 30. The results went exactly how I expected, with no consensus reached. Several editors support my contention that the current page is hopelessly one-sided and needs to take into account PragerU's history of controversies and misinformation (it has "repeat offender" status on Facebook for spreading misinformation after all). Several others, as I expected, rejected the premise that any of the suggested items have a place on the page. There seems to be very little middle ground. What are the next steps and what remedies are available from here? I maintain that the PragerU page (and the Dennis Prager page, for that matter) need to be drastically improved, and that they are seeing any material that is potentially unflattering to the subject being vetoed by a few contrarian editors. Given the controversial and topical nature of PragerU, that's likely to remain the case in the future. I know the RfC will automatically close after 30 days. Feel free to have a look at the RfC yourself, and thanks again for your help in all this Noteduck (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Robert,

You left a comment on my draft: Carolyn Pokorny page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carolyn_Pokorny

Firstly thank you for complimenting my COI! I'm certainly trying to do this above board and really appreciate your help.

I reviewed your comments and trimmed down the article significantly. If you have the time, would you mind letting me know any further edits I should make?

Thanks! Dblu9494 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I need a Userbox that has a kangaroo.... I keep getting brought to the ANI board for silly things that fall back on the person that brought me there. Of course.... it would be much nicer to just... not get brought up on the ANI and just talk things out... but ya know. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nightenbelle - Kangaroo. That is what the Australian natives would have been hunting with that interesting weapon. You probably understood anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did... thats why I was amused. :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This "stub", if it can even be called that since it's just a paragraph, seems like something that should be kept in a sandbox and properly developed, no? I thought that since you had once reviewed a draft of mine last year, this might be something you could handle or advise the particular user on accordingly. I didn't know if tagging for deletion would have been an appropriate response so I didn't do anything of the sort (or ask someone to) and came here to get your opinion instead. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Carlobunnie - It would be a reasonable stub if there were evidence of corporate notability, but there isn't. The author has seven days to improve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just re Kiengir's constant sniping in his posts on this. Could I possibly ask you to tell him not to do this? I am following the rules of DRN and keeping it about the changes I want to see on the page. It is really difficult to do this when the other party repeatedly introduces characterisations of the past conduct of the debate with which I completely disagree, but which I have no legitimate means to respond to without dragging the DRN down into a self-defeating morass of bickering. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boynamedsue,

I mentioned things regarding the ongoing DRN issue, regarding especially your fresh "Second statement by Boynamedsue", which is related to the content issue, please don't try to identify the things else as they are, take the responsibility of what you did and that they are noticed, especially when Robert asked It is even more important to be precise, on the other hand those as well were answers for the 4 points Robert asked/raised, in which you were mentioned as well expressis verbis, etc. (anyway, on the back and forth discussion you may react to anything, if you wish)

Robert, I disagree on the collapse - and kindly ask you to undo - since those contain important content specific notions for clarity, how could I phrase them not to mention the editor, when the editor did those? (don't worry, I know and understand the principle you claimed, there have been some content issues which could not be separated from the author) We have to clearly understand the issue in details.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC))Reply[reply]

User:KIENGIR - It is not necessary to identify another editor in order to describe what you want to be in the article. See my third statement. Just create your own draft of the article. If you think it is necessary to create multiple alternative drafts, either create them or ask me to create them. Aside from the fact that you were commenting on the other editor, comments that refer to previous versions of the article make it difficult to see what is the intended content of the article. Just provide the intended content of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for clarity, please react to my fith statement, until I cannot go forward (both of you did a bit, though I was not finished with B then). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC))Reply[reply]

• BacktoBeat (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jazmin Bean (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Thanks for reviewing my Jazmin Bean draft. This is my first time crafting a Wikipedia page so please excuse any of my ignorance on the process. While I noticed your recommendation to merge the two entires, the previous entry by another user does not look like it will at all pass nobility, nor is it written in a non biased wikipedia tone. Is there anything else you'd recommend or perhaps consider this draft in precedence over the other? Thanks

BacktoBeat (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:BacktoBeat - I have no specific suggestions about how to merge the drafts. I suggest that you communicate with User:Cold Alex. A draft combining the facts from both drafts is more likely to satisfy either musical notability or general notability than one draft by itself. I am not saying whether the subject is notable. I haven't done a detailed review, and I don't plan to do that while there are two drafts. You might ask for advice about the drafts and about merging them at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect User:Anupamdutta73/sandbox. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#User:Anupamdutta73/sandbox until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Anupam Dutta (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

K. has now posted his version A and C, do you want me to comment on his versions by editing my 4th statement, or would you prefer to comment and then open another round of comments? Boynamedsue (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Boynamedsue - I have opened another section for editor comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon, thank you for the support you gave me. I'm sorry but unfortunately I think the problem is much more serious and therefore the RFC [10] can be eliminated for now. Some of the issues in the discussions seem to have been resolved by consensus but I think there are more serious problems now. If you have more time to waste, take a look here User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article. I apologize, again.--Mhorg (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, as you suggested me I opened a AE about that case.[11] I hope I did fill the form right. As for the 500 words limit, I don't quite understand what they refer to. Must there be max 500 words in the part of the diffs and another 500 words in the part under "Additional comments by editor filing complaint"? Or 500 words for both parts? If it is 500 for both, can I be allowed to go over 500? They are accusing me of very serious things.--Mhorg (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon, I'd like to ask for your permission to exceed 500 words to answer to user's statements.--Mhorg (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to ask, how much usually takes the deletion review process? It is about Superkombat Fighting Championship - the number 1, largest kickboxing promotion in the world in 2011 and top 4 in 2015, and 2018 in SUPERKOMBAT, 2017 in SUPERKOMBAT, 2016 in SUPERKOMBAT, 2015 in SUPERKOMBAT, 2014 in SUPERKOMBAT, 2013 in SUPERKOMBAT, 2012 in SUPERKOMBAT and 2011 in SUPERKOMBAT which were deleted with the main article. I am on medical leave these weeks, so I can definitely improve the pages. Thanks!—.karellian-24 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:.karellian-24 - A Deletion Review runs for seven days. The deletion review in question has been open for seven days and is ready to be closed. Please do not ask me about the Deletion Review, but make your comments directly in the Deletion Review. I am only another editor of the Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, I just wanted to ask, is it possible for me to go back and add (politician) in the article name as it was disambiguated?

Hi Robert. I think that you are active in AfC? I have been asked to look at an AfD draft Draft:Flagship Pioneering, as I had edited on the Moderna article (a portfolio company of Flagship).

I think that it has the refs to show the individual corporate entity has independent notability (although it is still a stub), and there are enough further refs to build a proper article on this firm. Can I move this to Mainspace myself, or, is there an AfC process that needs to be followed? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Britishfinance - Any neutral editor can move a draft to mainspace. I would suggest that, if there has been declared paid editing, and there has been in this case, you should make a statement on the draft talk page to the effect that you have have given reviewed it. The issue should not be the references as such, because paid editors always provide enough references, but the neutrality of the article and the independence of the references. Paid editors usually write non-neutrally, and often supply references that are not independent. If you move the draft to article space, review it to be sure that it doesn't have any AFC comments in the article, but it appears in this case that it doesn't.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Robert and good advice. Are there any AfC tags/technical things that I would need to close off? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I moved Flagship Pioneering to mainspace and left a note on the TP on why I think it meets WP:NCORP, and a note to the author not to use puffery etc. Thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Britishfinance - A minor point. In the future, when moving a page from draft space to article space, the redirect should be kept in draft space. Redirects from article space to draft space are speedily deleted and should be avoided, but redirects to article space are normally kept. That is a minor matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can you explain to me why you declined the submission of the draft in simpler words? I have a plan to polish the draft, but I don't know where exactly the problem lays. Thank you! Byy2 (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Byy2 - Please identify one or more of her individual works, not done as a member of the group, that satisfy musical notability. Explain, in AFC comments or on the draft talk page, how they satisfy musical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not simply add references. Explain what achievement of hers, not by the group, satisfies musical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for answering my question! I'll try to come with something then. Byy2 (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. If another editor refuses to participate productively in a dispute resolution, what are the next steps in resolving an issue involving a page edit? Thanks. 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss article content at the article talk page, Talk:Scott Baio. Ask questions about policy and guidelines at the Teahouse or elsewhere. Report conduct issues at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the open Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case, the proposed decision has now been posted. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You were notified as you made comments in the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there. Following the decline to the draft of this page in November iVe done a lot more work on the it. If you could have another look and give me feedback that would be much appreciated. thanks david Dz3 (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi thank you for comments on Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute. I think I've addressed them: I divided in sections, added material and added citations to tertiary sources including NY Times and New Yorker. Various Wikipedia entries were mentioning this institute so it was high time to make a page. The page can certainly be improved but it's already ok and I'd think it's better for it to be published so other people can help improve it too? Voltdye (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I wanted to just casually ask something, as you said over on the DRN that: "The RFC was poorly composed, and did not ask the questions in a way that was likely to get resolution."

It was my first time composing an RfC, and I wanted to be careful of not presenting the case in a biased fashion, so I was wondering if you might be willing to just offer a pointer on how better to compose an RfC in the future? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

Robert, I hope that I have never shirked from apologising when I am in the wrong. However, I complained at ANI about two AfC declines made by LaMona: A.T.M. Wilson and Anthony Charles Robinson.

I had raised my concern with LaMona's rejection of A.T.M. Wilson on 12 July 2016 and been ignored. It passed NPOROF by a country mile. Anthony Charles Robinson was rejected by LaMona on 7 August 2016, but on 18 August 2018, it was unanimously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Charles Robinson.

So can you see how I felt your "The original poster didn't even try to discuss the decline with LaMona" was completely misleading? Do you owe me an apology? --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to RexxS

User:RexxS does not address the question of whether he will apologize to me for the 2016 personal attack. However, he asks me if I will apologize for what appears to have been an incorrect statement that I made based on sloppy fact-checking. I had complained on 11 August 2016 that RexxS had filed a report at WP:ANI that did not ask for administrative action, and that he had not discussed the issue with LaMona, and that RexxS was incorrectly accusing me of lying. I will digress first about AFC.

Articles for Creation has always been contentious. Some AFC reviewers are too hard. The guideline is that a draft should be accepted if there is more than a 50% chance that it will survive a deletion discussion. However, some reviewers apply much higher standards. It is not important at this time what the reasons are. It appears that LaMona was one such reviewer. It also appears that, when criticized, LaMona personalized the dispute by portraying it as sexism, which it was not. It also appears that, when criticized, RexxS personalized the dispute (but that would digress from the digression). The use of AFC is voluntary, except for editors who have a conflict of interest. Some reviewers and administrators may have told submitters to use AFC in ways that implied that its use was required, and some submitters may have thought that its use was required, or that they had been told that its use was required. The issues that were raised in the unfortunate WP:ANI exchange of August 2016 are still contentious. The concern that some reviewers are too hard was true then and is still true now.

I thought that RexxS made the mistake of bringing a concern to WP:ANI in 2016 that did not call for administrative action, and that could have been brought to the Village Pump. However, many editors bring concerns to WP:ANI that do not call for administrative action. Sometimes they do not call for anything. RexxS was at least raising a contentious issue that is still contentious.

I said that RexxS had not discussed the issue with LaMona. I see that RexxS had brought his concern to her attention. I was mistaken. I was too harsh in stating that back to RexxS. RexxS was wrong in personalizing that dispute, and more wrong in the way he personalized the dispute. I was also too harsh in 2019 in saying that RexxS was responsible for the departure of LaMona. LaMona's departing allegation of sexism was unwarranted.

RexxS made the greater mistake in attacking me. I made the lesser mistake, and I will apologize first. I apologize for saying that RexxS did not try to discuss with LaMona, and for assigning more blame in 2019 than was in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert, there is no need to address me in the third person. I am grateful for your openness in acknowledging that I had having previously discussed my concern with LaMona, and an apology is not needed, although appreciated. It is in the nature of humans to make mistakes, and I should not have accused you of telling a lie. I apologise unreservedly to you for using those words, and I assure you I will not do so in future. Having looked again at the interaction, I should have made the good-faith assumption that you were unaware of my previous complaint and not assumed the worst. You have my further assurance that I appreciate the work you do at AfC and I'm always willing to do what I can to help improve that difficult process, should my assistance ever be sought. Regards --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:RexxS - I was referring to you in the third person because I was directing my remarks both to you and to the community. I usually refer to people in the third person if there is any possible doubt as to who I am addressing. On your talk page, I would be addressing you. On my talk page, I can be addressing anyone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Florentino P. Feliciano, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Justin Paul (disambiguation), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert, do you have the bandwidth to help me answer a consensus question? I'm not sure where the correct place to ask is. The question relates to this topic [[12]]. In short, how do you decide when something is a continuation of a prior consensus question vs a new question. In this case material was added in early Nov 2020. It was challenged in late Nov/early December. At the time consensus was 4:2 for inclusion. Less than two months later a new editor objects to the same content. We are now at 4:5 oppose, ie noconsensus. Is this a case of old consensus and new nocon or simply a drawn out discussion that has finally resulted in a NOCON? If a RfC were started today would a NOCON result in inclusion or exclusion? I'm not sure where this question would be asked. Thanks Springee (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Robert,

I'm letting you know I'm interested in getting this dispute resolved. If AbleGus has not responded can you suggest further steps I might take? Regards,Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Cheryl Fullerton - See my closing statement at DRN. Either ask User:Ritchie333 for a third opinion, or ask for help in composing a neutrally worded RFC.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 04:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I had submitted the draft for review. Thanks for explaining me the reason of declining the article. You said that my article does not qualify for Wikipedia because they do not show significant coverage and doesn't have any independent, reliable, secondary sources. So, I have finished editing the draft just now and tried to fix these issues or problems and resubmitted for review. Please check if it is now suitable for qualifying as a Wikipedia article and reply me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.A Prinon (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your work in moderating this discussion, I understand it must be quite frustrating. Given your comments re. our failure to clearly point out that two of our versions were exceptionally close, I feel it might be useful if I take a more proactive role in communicating the positions held by the users. I don't want to appear to try to speak for KIENGIR, but for clarity's sake, I think I could succinctly and neutrally summarise the reasoning behind his objection to the proposal of a new status which quo which you made last night. This would be based on his comments both on the talkpage and at DRN.

I don't want to do this without your say-so, as you have asked us to merely present our own versions on a couple of occasions, but I think it might speed the process along. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry if I did something wrong, but I am very hurt by rejections or negative comments, so forgive me if I am violating something.

You said Youtube was not reliable. I refrenced videos from the primary source, which is the author, who has a channel on Yotube, so therefore, you are wrong. Youtube was a reliable source, at least his videos. You stated that Amazon was not a reliable source. Well, I just linked the site to show it was available for pre-ordering, because he stated it in his Twitter account it was available for preordering, and I can't link Twitter here.

The release date was in Amazon, and it was confirmed by Greene to be then. The review was in another article, but it couldn't be linked without the blacklist problem, so I linked Amazon. The review was from a very popular, and reliable author, who did that review, and was not someone pretending. What's the problem with putting unreleased books? Won't they ever be released? If so, then unreleased movies should not be put up in the mainspace, or unreleased shows and episodes.

I wrote the article with reliable sources. If you still argue that it wasn't released, let me see unreleased movies and episodes being moved to draftspace, since they aren't released yet. And besides, there aren't much sources online talking about this. If there are, please feel free to link me to them.

I'm sorry if I was harsh. Cheers.

Danglerofhell (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Danglerofhell - First, please do not tell a reviewer that they are wrong, even if the reviewer is wrong. The next time that you want a draft reviewed, they might have to excuse themselves, and you might have to wait for another reviewer. Try being a little more polite than that. Second, if you disagree with my review, you are welcome to ask to discuss it at the Teahouse. Third, unreleased movies should be moved back to draft space, as should unreleased books, but this is an area where editors and reviewers are inconsistent. Fourth, maybe I should have said that Youtube and Amazon are not independent reliable sources. They are not considered independent sources. Fifth, it is a general rule that unreleased stuff is not considered notable. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sometimes they never get released. Sixth, you don't appear to have responded to the conflict of interest inquiry; please do. Seventh, are you coordinating with User:Theniommusmamu, or are you both just fans of the same works? Eighth, I realize that sometimes decline messages are harsh. Please do not take them personally. Nothing is personal until it is personal. Ninth, if you want to discuss at the Teahouse, we can discuss at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently, you rejected the Draft:Wilbur Soot for having no significant improvement since the last declination. However, the subject passes criterion number 2 on WP:MUSICBIO: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Gold definitely meets this requirement with "Your New Boyfriend", which peaked at number 65 on the UK Singles Chart. This, combined with other secondary sources, makes the subject, in my opinion, most likely notable. IanTEB (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:IanTEB - You resubmitted the draft without addressing my question about musical notability criteria. If you had provided that explanation in an AFC comment, or on the draft talk page, it would have been helpful. {Some reviewers are annoyed by resubmissions without explanations. I am one of those reviewers.) At this point, I suggest that we discuss at the Teahouse. I think that some of the reviewers had raised questions about whether Wilbur Soot was the principal artist of the recording; it appears that he is. So I suggest that we discuss at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I seem to have misread your AfC comment. I thought you asked me to respond on the talk page, which I did. My apologies! Cheers, IanTEB (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Robert,

I just submitted this draft because it was on my stale draft list and it looked like it was on the verge of being an article. Mostly what I see as G13s are almost blank pages or test pages, it's rare to see a draft with references.

It did have a "might be paid editing" tag but since the primary editor has been blocked, I'm not sure how relevant it still is since he/she will no longer be working on it. I assumed that the person went by the name "David August" without a last name (like many artists do) because that was the title of the draft. That's about as much as I know. I see hundreds of stale drafts a day and the rate I see one in this good shape is probably 1 out of 100 drafts so I thought I'd pass it along to AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Liz - Okay. I will change the title and make other minor changes and then resubmit it for another reviewer. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to offer my thanks for the work you put into getting the Hungarian Romani discussion into a shape where it could be presented as an RfC. I'm sorry for the time and frustration this must have cost you, so I just wanted to express my appreciation and wish you all the best for the future. All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just letting you know that I already put the song's name(my draft) in the Flash disambiguation already! RayJstillhere (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I acknowledge the multiple submission, whiles it may be in contravention of wiki ethics and rules, I must admit that the second submission was done mistakenly. I appreciate you taking the time to review it for me. Thank you. Castling D (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Castling DReply[reply]

User:Castling D There is no rule exactly. It just clutters things. It is often an accident. McClenon mobile (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right. Since the original one is still in place, I'll appreciate it if you could take a look, possibly review it for feedback. Castling D (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Castling DReply[reply]

I see that you finally resolved that marathon DRN Case. Congrats! Nightenbelle (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I didn't resolve it, but I closed it. In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there is a Someone Else's Problem field that makes something almost invisible, because it is someone else's problem. It is now their problem and the problem of any editor who !votes in the RFC. That case did keep dragging on, with repeated steps back when I thought we were going forward. They weren't arguing over that much. At least it didn't go to WP:ANI, and didn't end with any boomerangs. The last case that was decided by the Arbitration Committee was a boomerang for the record books. It wasn't that the kangaroo wasn't there. There was a Syrian kangaroo in that case, and it is being staked or steaked, but the filer threw two boomerangs, and the filing party has been banned. Thanks User:Nightenbelle.

Hello Robert McClenon

Many thanks for reviewing my [Kawa] Draft. not sure if this is the place I comment on your comments :-)

1. Unfortunately, this content is about the Kawa IDE and it is *not* associated at all with the Kawa Scheme language you want me to merge with. It was indeed a known but different software for a different domain at the time.
2. I will edit further the content to make it less of a perceived ad - This is not my intent but want to place the reader in the product's historical context.

Regards, --Startup911 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we able to remove a discussion or message from our user talk page? Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi friend, I have a request from you if you can review this draft of a Spain based media house and bring it to mainspace AFC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Transcontinental_Times Vishalttplayer (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello.. Greetings.. Could you please review the below attached article? Draft:Thiruvarppu Sree Krishna Temple. Thanks in advance ProudMallu (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert! Thank you for your comments. Being new at Wikipedia, I'm a little unclear what to do. I understand that my article is missing "reliable sources". I removed the list of the singers songs becausei'm not sure how to list them from a reliable source. I found all of it on Spotify. Does Spotify qualify as a reliable source? Also, do I need to manually add sources to the Reference section? Thanks again for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarleneCab (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:DarleneCab - Spotify is not considered a reliable source for a combination of two reasons. First, because it is a music downloading service, it lists everything that is available, and is simply a catalog. Second, statistics from Spotify are considered user-generated content. However, you can ask more about Spotify at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Robert. I found that the Problem Child was actually mentioned in the "music of St Vincent" article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Saint_Vincent_and_the_Grenadines). How do I link his name from that rticle to the new article?

Hello Robert you were involved in moving Embers (James Newman song) to Draft now that it has been released and is going to be the UK entry to Eurovision Song Contest would you have any concerns about this moving to the main page all other Eurovision entries have one. DoctorAB (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:DoctorAB - The draft was previously submitted when it was not ready to be submitted, and I declined the draft. I see that the song has been released and I see that the draft has been expanded. I will let another reviewer review it. (Some reviewers are annoyed by submissions that are not ready for review, and I am one of them, so I won't review it this time. In the future, please do not annoy the reviewers.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I did not submit it in the first place but have expanded it. DoctorAB (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert,

Would you please help me on making this page reviewed and approved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jafar_Najafi_(filmmaker)#Jafar_Najafi

I really appreciate your comment on the page. I see that the title correction is already there, but I don't know why the page is not review and approved. Should I do anything to fix that comment and get approval? Would really appreciate if you can advise.

Thanks

Hi Robert, Just wanted to follow up about it. I would really appreciate it, if you can advise me about this. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbehboudirad (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Hbehboudirad - The reviewing of drafts is backlogged. In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your feedback on Draft:TigerGraph - it makes sense - and I've considered your comments carefully several times. Although I originally intended to provide a lengthier draft, with more information, the current version only includes statements that can be directly attributed to independent journalists and analysts.

I believe TigerGraph qualifies for a page, because:

• It is the subject of pieces in VentureBeat, eWeek, and ZDNet.
• Forrester and Gartner have recognized it as an important analytics company

I hope you agree - and hope that you will take a closer look, or let me know what specific edits to my draft are required.

Looking forward to hearing from you. DRonald0412 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Robert! Unfortunately it seems that Clinical social work, which you accepted from draft, contains some fairly extensive copyvio; I've blanked it and listed it at WP:CP. Since I'm here, can I suggest that instead of moving pages out of the way if they're blocking a draft acceptance, you either tag them as G6 or db-move, or otherwise just ask for help (I'm happy to do what I can when I can). I've hist-merged the previous history of that page into it, now need to look at the capitalised version of the title ... Thanks for all your good work, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am a bit confused as I have been writing for years and have never had such a concern. All material was properly cited and referenced per academic standards. Additionally, The material is factual, and while paraphrased, cannot be altered from its reality. Nevertheless, in an attempt to resolve the issue, I have edited the article attempting to remove and/or edit any material that may have been of concern. Thanks so much and I look forward to your feedback as I hope the edits resolved the perceived issue.JCarr8Wiki (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC) JCarr8Wiki (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have posted a rewrite for Clinical social work at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clinical_social_work/Temp. This is an effort to resolved the suggested Copyvio issue. I am a little lost in trying to resolve this issue and any guidance would be appreciated.JCarr8Wiki (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:JCarr8Wiki - I will let User:Justlettersandnumbers look at it. I will look at it soon also, but I also did not expect that there was a copyvio issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:JCarr8Wiki - It might be better to add a new post as a separate section on another editor's talk page if you are having difficulty in adding to a section, and you were having difficulty. It appears that you were trying to add a paragraph to your post, and, in the process, you accidentally deleted everything below there. User:EvergreenFir restored the accidentally deleted material, for which I thank her; but I assume that you weren't trying to delete anything. So, next time, just add a new post at the bottom. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, okay. Thanks so much! Not sure what your last message is about though-accidental deleting? JCarr8Wiki (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:JCarr8Wiki - Yes. You accidentally deleted multiple sections from my talk page. EvergreenFir restored the accidental damage. That was an accident. Now you know. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My sincere apologies; I did not even know that I had done this. Once I get this Clinical social work page ironed out, I think I am going to no longer contribute as I am not sure I know what I am doing. Again, my sincere apologies! JCarr8Wiki (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JCarr8Wiki, Our best editors started out making mistakes. Almost no exceptions. Keep at it Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:JCarr8Wiki - To elaborate on what User:Timtrent says, our best editors have made interesting mistakes and learned from them. Our worst editors make the same mistakes over and over again and don't learn, until an admin learns for them about competence or not being here to contribute. You have made an interesting mistake and are learning from it. Carry on. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:Robert McClenon, thanks for the attention. This BLP is different from Ashutosh Sharma (scientist). The new Afc is about a biotechnology professor and director at ITESM, Mexico. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox musical artist on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment, and at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment, and at Talk:GameStop 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 04:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Robert, I have posted a proposal to change the "Origins" section of the Jefferson Starship article to a paragraph or more that focuses on other members of the founders of JS and their musical contributions on the Jefferson Starship talk page. I haven't heard anything from any other editors yet. Is there a place for requesting input from other editors, or do I just have to hope someone will jump in with suggestions? Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Cheryl Fullerton - You only posted that proposal 24 hours ago. Wait a few more days. I don't know how often other editors check that talk page. Then, if you don't hear anything from them, go ahead and edit the article boldly. You have already showed that you are working collaboratively by making a proposal on the talk page first. If anyone disagrees either before or after you edit, then discuss it with them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you go to Preferences/Gadgets/Appearance and click the button which says "Strike out usernames that have been blocked", usernamesof editors who are blocked will be struck-through. I find it very helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Robert McClenon:, hope you are doing well. I responded to your comments on the Draft talk:Joy Corrigan and asked for advice on the Teahouse, as well, as you asked. But, nobody responded over there other than you. Can you please suggest how to proceed from here? Thanks! Hillster (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Your draft is currently in a state of having been declined (by me) and not resubmitted. No one will do anything with it if it isn't resubmitted, except that in six months it will die of old age. If you resubmit it, it will be reviewed sometime, and there is no guarantee when. In particular, no reviewer is in a hurry to review a draft for a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He charted in 1986 in Ireland and I am having a difficult time locating the pop charts from that era. Do you have any suggestions?

Also, if I list him as a producer instead of a musician, will I have a better chance of creating an accepted article. Right now my friend has an issue with people asking for information about him on Alexa and the only Andy Cooney in Wikipedia is a member of the IRA. It has caused some embarrassing confusion. That is why we are working on creating a page.

Waldenhorse (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Robert. I got your message. Waldenhorse (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

You are asking about locating pop music charts from 1986 from Ireland. There is probably someone in Wikipedia who can answer that question, but I don't know how to find them. We have a WT:WikiProject Pop Music, but it doesn't seem to be all that active, perhaps because most of its activity is in subtasks. My advice at this point would be to ask where to start at the Teahouse. Some of the editors there are very knowledgeable about Wikipedia trivia, and this is what I would call Wikipedia trivia, which is not the same as trivia about singers.

I have put a hatnote on Draft:Andy Cooney for the other Andy Cooney. When your draft is accepted, a hatnote should be put on the other Andy Cooney for the singer.

It is probably better to list him as a musician. We get a lot more articles on musicians, and have well-developed standards on when to accept them. See the musical notability guidelines. Our guidelines for producers are less well-defined, and besides a lot of people claim to be producers when they are various sorts of assistants to a producer.

Those are starting comments. Try asking for help at the Teahouse. Maybe I may ask for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got a report from Radiomonitor.com that has Andy's total radio play in Ireland from Oct 2015 to Apr 2021 with a total impact of 16.44m plays. Is that something that can be used to prove impact and popularity? Waldenhorse (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2021 (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, "Justin Paul".

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! 5a5ha seven (talk | contribs)^{[citation needed]} 19:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Robert, I saw your comment about a duplicate draft on Draft:Technical Sports Racing2. The original draft is not mine, and I just translated the italian article to english and removed and replaced a few things so I didn’t see the original, and that editor may not have wanted to change the article in the same way. Is it fine if I remove that comment on the draft? Thanks so much! Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 17:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, Following up on your comment, and not following exactly what you are suggesting I find at Wikipedia's Teahouse. If you could please be more specific what major changes the entry for Strattic should see, I would be glad to conduct further research and/or edit the article as needed. Best - Oshua — Preceding unsigned comment added by FridayNightLights2002 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:FridayNightLights2002 - Draft:Strattic was moved from article space to draft space by new page reviewer User:S0091. I would suggest that you ask them. I tagged the page because I saw that it had been moved. So I suggest that you ask User:S0091. I will also go to the Teahouse, because I haven't been there in the last few hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for helping my first article to get some traction. I am not as well versed with this part of the process as I am with simple edits, and finding help to get it to (possibly) be accepted is what I've been needing. Sometimes the end is only the beginning... (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed what you commented. I don't know how to reply on the post. Thanks for the help! Jianghaiyang (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I edited what you said. Why did you delete it? Jianghaiyang (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I fixed it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jianghaiyang (talk • contribs) 16:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we do formatting disputes? Is that content? Is there a project this falls under? Can I just be a WP:3o and say one looks good and one looks awful? (not saying which right now- just.... I have an opinion in general) How in the world would be mediate the football dispute? Nightenbelle (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nightenbelle - Well, first, if you have an opinion, I would suggest that offering it might help and would not do any harm. But second, I think that formatting disputes are content, because all disputes are content, conduct, or a combination of the two. Third, in my experience, table formatting disputes can be bitter and unpleasant, more than one would expect until one has encountered one or three of them. Fourth, how I will resolve the football dispute, if I get stuck with it, is by RFC. That lets the community resolve it. I think that is American football rather than association football because the mediator fails to advance the ball and gets to fourth down and can punt. But table formatting disputes can be bad. The Motorsports arbitration case was mostly about table formatting, and has ended up with one of the editors being banned. Earlier this month, the dispute over Ru Paul's Drag Race in the United Kingdom appears to have been mostly over formatting of tables, and it had the article put under full protection for a month due to edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After the moderator publishes an RFC, they have the privilege of having the dispute be almost invisible to the moderator because it will be Someone Else's Problem when someone has to close the RFC. Or look at the dispute over the sexuality of Frederic Chopin. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not a sports fan.... American or Normal football. So.... Your analogy was very nearly lost on me. Had to do some research to figure out what it meant. ;-) Posted my opinion..... hope it helps!Nightenbelle (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh- and Space X is going to be a problem. They have no source that supports the information they want in the table. They are doing a TON of WP:OR. I looked through the article and the talk page- 1 person has called them on this before and was completely ignored. So.... Need to fix that before we can even begin to work on a table.... hard to have a table with no information. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nightenbelle - To simplify, the punt in American football causes the football to become Someone Else's Problem. Once an RFC is started, it isn't the moderator's problem any more. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]